ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was asked—

Charities

David Jones: What assessment the Charity Commission has made of the effect of the economic downturn on charities.

Kevin Brennan: The Charity Commission recently published its second economic survey of charities, which showed that just over half of the charities surveyed are feeling the impact of the downturn. While 30 per cent. of those surveyed have seen their incomes decrease, 32 per cent. say that they have already taken steps to combat the impact of the downturn. The full results of the survey are available in the Library of the House.

David Jones: As the Minister has indicated, the economic survey revealed that charities were feeling the impact of the downturn, but 20 per cent. of them reported that they were experiencing increasing demand for the services that they offer. Given the increasing importance of the third sector in delivering what are often core services, can he say what the Government are doing to help ensure that those services are maintained in the downturn?

Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. Although the survey showed that 5 per cent. of charities reported that they had had to cut services or were holding off new services as a result of the downturn, only 2 per cent. reported that they had had to reduce staff during the recession. We have introduced our "Real Help Now" recession action plan to meet the demands of organisations in the third sector, as they have made it clear that they are worried about the increase in demand at a time when it is possible that their income will fall. The package includes a modernisation fund to help charities meet the challenges of the recession and a fund to help charities in the front line that are working in the most deprived areas, as well as schemes to increase social enterprise and volunteering.

Adrian Bailey: Although the recession is having an impact on potential funding streams for charities, does my hon. Friend agree that they may also be affected by a rise in the demands made on them by people who become unemployed? Another effect of the recession may be that people leaving jobs might want to contribute their skills to the charitable sector. It is most important that the sector is geared up to maximise the benefit and the potential that it can deliver to both groups. Will he say what is being done about that?

Kevin Brennan: As part of our recession action plan, we have made available, together with the Department for Work and Pensions, up to £10 million to broker volunteering opportunities for people who become redundant during the recession. That will enable them to learn new skills and offer some of the skills that they have already to the charitable sector. That is extremely important, as is the fact that charities must consider how best to modernise themselves as they respond to the downturn. That is why, at their request, we introduced the £16.5 million modernisation fund that will help them to work together more closely, for instance by occasionally sharing back-office functions or possibly, where appropriate, merging operations.

John Howell: The Prime Minister promised in his Romanes lecture in Oxford that science would somehow be exempt from the recession's effects. Can the Minister say how that is likely to play out for charities that provide scientific research?

Kevin Brennan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is one of those hon. Members—they come from all parties—who agree that charities make a huge contribution to scientific research in this country. The Government have been extremely progressive in creating an environment in which the third sector has been able to develop research, especially in medicine and genetics. The Prime Minister is absolutely committed to ensuring that this country is one of the best countries in the world for scientific research.

Derek Wyatt: I have more than 200 charities in my constituency. Given the success of directgov.uk in corralling websites across Parliament and Government, would it be possible to do the same for charities? Could some of the software used in directgov.uk be made available for charities on a portal?

Kevin Brennan: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to tell the House that we are introducing a new funding portal. As a single gateway for third sector organisations, it will direct them to appropriate funding. I am working with the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), to ensure that it will fit in with the digital programme that the Government already have in place. My hon. Friend's question also gives me an opportunity to announce that measures being put in place today will enable smaller charities to cut up to £5 million of red tape.

Francis Maude: It is clear that many charities are having a really tough time because of the recession. It has now been admitted that the Financial Services Authority knew of the risks with Icelandic banks as long ago as the beginning of last year, at which stage it informed both the Treasury and the Bank of England. Why were charities and the public not warned of the risks of investing in those banks? Will the Minister apologise for that failure, which has accentuated the financial woes that charities now face?

Kevin Brennan: I have had the opportunity to meet representatives of the charities involved in the "Save Our Savings" campaign, and I have also met MPs who have charities in their constituencies that have been affected by the Icelandic bank problems of recent months. The Government are continuing to listen to the concerns of third sector organisations whose investments are tied up in the administrative process. I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury met representatives of some of the affected charities just last week, and that he is considering the outcome of that meeting.

Francis Maude: Listening is all very well, but sorry still seems to be the hardest word. Charities face a really tough time, so is it not doubly important that the Charity Commission monitors effectively the links between charities and violent extremists? Charities rightly have special status, which we all support, but at a time when funds for them are limited, it is important that they are bona fide. Will the Minister ensure that action is taken against charities such as Green Crescent, which seems to have been supporting terrorism in Bangladesh?

Kevin Brennan: Links between charities and terrorism are, of course, completely unacceptable, although extremely rare, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree. The Charity Commission takes any such allegations seriously. It published a counter-terrorism strategy that was updated last year, and it works closely with police and other agencies. Green Crescent, which he mentioned, is subject to an ongoing investigation by the Charity Commission, which has already taken action to freeze the charity's bank accounts and has suspended a trustee. It is important to maintain investment in the third sector during this downturn. The £100 million cuts to the Cabinet Office budget, which would have come in today, certainly would not be the way to help the third sector at this time.

Women's Voluntary Organisations

Fiona Mactaggart: What discussions he has had with women's voluntary organisations on the effect of local authority procurement practices on them; and if he will make a statement.

Kevin Brennan: I meet a wide range of third sector organisations, including women's groups, through the Government's national programme for third sector commissioning. We are engaging with local authority and other public sector commissioners on how to improve practice towards the third sector. That includes recent work with the Women's National Commission on embedding key messages and sharing good practice on equalities in commissioning and procurement.

Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply, but at a recent meeting that I had with a number of women's voluntary organisations, including Women's Aid, I heard that the shift from grant-funded services to procurement has actually damaged the sector by requiring a one-size-fits-all response. That has led to a cut from 35 to 15 in black and minority ethnic specialist organisations, and a requirement that Women's Aid provides for male victims of domestic violence, as well as women victims. Will he, and Department for Communities and Local Government representatives, agree to meet people from that sector to discuss whether we could have a better framework for commissioning those important services?

Kevin Brennan: We already have in place a national programme for improving commissioning, which has had the opportunity to train more than 1,000 commissioners across the country, including on the matters that my hon. Friend mentioned. However, I understand the issue that she raises, and I would be happy to meet her and any representatives that she would like to bring in from Women's Aid or other organisations to discuss her concerns, possibly on a cross-Government basis, to make sure that the other Departments concerned are represented, and to talk further about the issues that she raised.

Ann Winterton: Is the Minister aware of the problems facing many women's voluntary organisations, such as the excellent Cheshire Federation of Women's Institutes, as a result of the reorganisation of local government in Cheshire? That adds extra expense, and means extra effort, for that organisation and many other voluntary organisations, because whereas they previously had one set of contacts at Cheshire county council, they now have to duplicate all efforts with Cheshire East and Cheshire West councils. Why did the Government go down that path?

Kevin Brennan: I hesitate to revisit the issue of the local government reorganisation that is coming into force today, just as I would hesitate to take on the Cheshire Federation of Women's Institutes in any way, shape or form, but I note the hon. Lady's remarks, and I am sure that the House does, too.

Third Sector Organisations

Ben Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with third sector organisations on the effects of the economic downturn on their funding streams; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: My Department is in constant contact with the sector to monitor the effects of the downturn. That is why we are determined to invest £500 million to support the sector over this comprehensive spending review period, and why we committed £42 million in extra targeted help in January.

Ben Chapman: Does the Minister accept that the double whammy of the economic recession will mean not just reduced charitable donations, but the possibility of reduced lottery moneys for charities as a result of reduced ticket sales? Does he accept that children's hospices in particular and smaller charities in general will be particularly affected? Will he ensure that appropriate practical advice is given to both children's hospices and smaller charities so that they can weather the period of the recession?

Liam Byrne: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he does representing and speaking up for hospices in his constituency. The third sector and charities such as those that he alludes to go into the downturn in stronger health than ever before, because we have doubled public income to the third sector from £5.5 billion to £11 billion. We are determined to do more. That is why we are spending £500 million over the comprehensive spending review period, and why we are determined to bring forward reviews and reform of Gift Aid. [Official Report, 2 April 2009, Vol. 490, c. 10MC.] The tax system is now worth £4 billion to charities. Where there are opportunities for us to bring public services, charities and voluntary groups closer together, and to use that strategy to strengthen charities, we will do that. That is why the Department of Health has asked Futurebuilders to manage £100 million-worth of investment in social enterprises over the next couple of years.

Patrick Cormack: While endorsing what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask him, as he is well known for his memos to his colleagues and his officers—

Ian Lucas: Excellent memos.

Patrick Cormack: They may be excellent, but could one go out today outlawing that ridiculous term, "third sector"? I have had a go at him about it before. It causes confusion. Let us have some plain English for once. Let us get rid of downturns and third sectors, and talk the English language.

Liam Byrne: As ever, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's advice. I will put immediate thought into how such a memo could be drafted and propagated—perhaps through  The Mail on Sunday.

David Borrow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in South Ribble, the Tory council has cut funding to a number of voluntary organisations, including the citizens advice bureau, the women's refuge, Victim Support and a charity helping young homeless people? Will he agree to look into the problem of cuts in local authority support for the voluntary sector just at the time when extra rather than less support is needed?

Liam Byrne: I am sad to hear about the lack of support that my hon. Friend's local authority is showing to the third sector. Local authorities are vital partners in ensuring that the civic strength of this country becomes greater still over the years to come. We are collecting information right the way across the country about how well local councils are supporting, or in my hon. Friend's case not supporting, their local charities and voluntary groups, and we will publish those data over the next couple of months.

Gary Streeter: I commend the right hon. Gentleman for setting up the modernisation fund, which we have already heard about. In his discussions with the third sector—a perfectly sensible name, by the way—will he make it clear that in these straitened financial times he will give greater weight to organisations that show that they will collaborate and co-operate with other similar third sector organisations in their locality, so that some of the duplication and waste that we see in the third sector can be cut out?

Liam Byrne: Now I feel terribly conflicted.

Patrick Cormack: Sort him out!

Liam Byrne: I will do my best. [Official Report, 2 April 2009, Vol. 490, c. 10MC.] The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) is right. Very often it is smaller organisations that make the biggest difference to their communities. That is why we wanted to step up the amount of funding that goes through grassroots grants. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I understand that there are about nine organisations which receive about £27,000-worth of grassroots grants. Often those small amounts of money will make the world of difference, as he knows. When the Charity Commission recently asked the question of the sector—however we choose to define the sector—84 per cent. of respondents said that they were more interested in collaboration in the months to come. That is why the modernisation fund, which I am glad to be able to tell the House opens for business today, will provide £16.5 million not just to organisations seeking to merge and grow stronger, but to those that seek advice on how to collaborate more effectively in order to do the job that they are so passionate about.

Phil Wilson: What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to help voluntary organisations that work with the unemployed?

Liam Byrne: Volunteering organisations in particular have enormous potential to help people get back to work. We are absolutely determined that long-term unemployment, which so scarred this country during the 1980s, will not be an outcome of this recession. That is why the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions have set out clear plans to make sure that, after six months, people are given extra training, the opportunity to get extra help to get back to work, or the opportunity to start volunteering in their local communities. That is why the third sector action plan, which we published in January, provided for about £10 million to create about 40,000 volunteering opportunities, to make sure that there is no return to long-term unemployment in this country.

Jennifer Willott: State funding now outstrips donations as the largest source of charities' funds, especially in health and human services; in some cases, more than 80 per cent. of such charities' total income is made up of Government funding. Those charities in particular are at real risk at the moment as Government Departments come under increased pressure to save money and cut costs. We have already heard this morning that there is increased demand for those services in particular. Will the Minister commit to talking to other Departments to make sure that vital funds are not cut from charities at this time and that they can carry on providing fundamental public services?

Liam Byrne: Absolutely. We are trying to strengthen the sector over the years to come; that is why we have provided for such a unique and unprecedented amount of money to go to the sector in the months to come. It is important that we strengthen the role of charities and voluntary groups in delivering public services and helping to deliver public services. That is why Futurebuilders is providing so much money to help exactly with that task, why the Department of Health is investing £100 million to help social enterprises step up to provide public services and why the Department for Children, Schools and Families is also providing £100 million to help. This is already a cross-Government effort.

Hugh Bayley: Charities that work abroad, such as Oxfam and International Service, face the same pressures on fundraising as charities that work in the UK. However, they have an additional pressure because the money that they spend abroad has fallen in value by 20 or 25 per cent. as a result of the change in the value of the pound. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Department for International Development, and other British Departments of State that fund international charities, to see what additional help can be provided to ensure that those charities' Government-funded programmes of work continue at the same level as was originally anticipated?

Liam Byrne: I will, of course, have those conversations on my hon. Friend's behalf. It is important that we do not just talk about how we can strengthen the role of charities and other groups in delivering international aid, but that we back that with concrete plans to increase funding. That is why so many on the Labour Benches are proud of our commitment to increase overseas aid, despite the difficulties that our economy faces.

Nick Hurd: It is hard enough to run a voluntary organisation, but now really important community organisations such as churches and sports clubs are facing huge increases in their water bills as a result of new surface water drainage charges. Some clubs are reporting tenfold increases in their bills. It is extraordinary that those changes should have been made without any impact assessment. Surely the one thing that the Government must do in these times is avoid making things even harder for people trying to help their communities. Will they step in now and impose a moratorium on the changes, at least until an impact assessment is done? That would be real help now.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for that advice. I understand that Brian Moore in  The Daily Telegraph has been leading a campaign on that exact issue, for which I commend him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are determined to make sure that there is specific, targeted, focused help for organisations that are facing new pressures, such as a decline in income and a step up in demand for their services. That is why we put £42 million of help on the table in January. Where there are additional pressures and Government action could help, we will, of course, have those conversations with my colleagues across Government.

Public Services

Sharon Hodgson: What steps he plans to take to maintain the public services for which his Department is responsible during the recession.

Jim Devine: What steps he plans to take to maintain the public services for which his Department is responsible during the recession.

Liam Byrne: The Government do not believe in cutting back during a downturn. That is why public net investment will rise from £30 billion in 2007 to £40 billion in 2009-10. It is why, in the Cabinet Office, we are providing extra funding to support charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises and the communities that they help.

Sharon Hodgson: Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that the public sector needs to be more creative, more ingenious and, most importantly, greener to help us to fight our way out of the recession? If he does agree, would he consider working with Smith Electric Vehicles in my constituency in order to achieve that?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend will also know that my constituency, Birmingham, Hodge Hill, is home to LDV, which is pioneering new products in the electric vehicles market. She can rest assured that that is a mission to which I am also passionately committed.

Jim Devine: As my right hon. Friend knows, during the 1980s I worked as part of a primary care psychiatric team. I watched doctors prescribing antidepressants and Valium when they could have prescribed a job—if there had been jobs, people would not have been near the health service. Will he assure me that we do not believe that high unemployment is a price worth paying and that we will invest to ensure that we will not abandon a generation to Valium, videos and vodka?

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, in contrast to the early 1980s, when public net investment fell in real terms from about £16 billion to just £11 billion, we will take precisely the opposite course of action. One cannot cut one's way out of a recession; one can only grow one's way out of a recession. That is why this Government are committed to increasing investment, strengthening public services and doing everything possible to help those coming out of work. We do not believe that unemployment is a price worth paying, unlike the Conservative party.

Denis MacShane: As my right hon. Friend rightly defends the importance of public service, does he agree that the new guiding principle should be that no one employed from the public purse should earn more than the salary of the Prime Minister?

Liam Byrne: It is vital that public sector pay is constrained. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has pioneered three-year pay deals, and why it is particularly important that those leaders at the top of public life show an example. The Prime Minister announced yesterday that for the senior civil service and the judiciary we will not accept the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body and we will abate increases this year to 1.5 per cent. It is important for Ministers, in particular, to show restraint, which is why Ministers will not be taking a pay rise either in their ministerial pay or in their pay as Members of this House.

Civil Service

Mark Harper: What plans the Government have to create additional jobs in the civil service during the recession.

Tom Watson: The Government are committed to helping people and businesses as we fight through the economic downturn. Our priority is to support people back into work. In the hon. Gentleman's own area of interest, the civil service is playing its part. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions is recruiting 6,000 more front-line staff in Jobcentre Plus.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. When he is looking at civil service recruitment, will he consider the fact that every Government Department pays its disabled employees less than its non-disabled employees? The Home Office, which is the worst offender, pays disabled employees a third less than their non-disabled counterparts. Will he take action to stamp out that discrimination?

Tom Watson: As I say, I know that the hon. Gentleman has a personal interest in this area. The record on recruitment for civil servants with disabilities is a good one. We have doubled the number of civil servants claiming to be disabled since 2001. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I will take a look at it.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend will be aware that civil and public service workers are just as concerned about their jobs as those in the private sector. Can he assure the House that he will continue to invest in the public services of this country and will not pander to the millionaires' club who would cut inheritance tax?

Tom Watson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will not pursue policies that benefit the few, not the many. Indeed, this month the Conservatives committed to removing the equivalent of 3,400 police officers from the Home Office budget, taking away £3 billion-worth of critical infrastructure investment that supports our workers through difficult times, and slashing the budget of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, which would threaten apprenticeships. There is only one minute to go until the end of April fools' day, but the real tragedy is that the Conservatives are serious about that.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Edward Garnier: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 1 April.

Gordon Brown: This morning, on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom, I welcomed President Obama and the First Lady to Downing street.
	This afternoon I will be meeting President Medvedev of Russia, Prime Minister Singh, Prime Minister Aso of Japan, and the President of China. Tonight, the G20 leaders will meet in the first session of the G20 summit. I am proud that our country is hosting the G20 meeting.

Edward Garnier: The Prime Minister and his noble Friend Lord Myners have now had 24 hours to consider whether they can confirm what Lord Myners said to the Treasury Committee about Sir Fred Goodwin's pension arrangements. Does the Prime Minister understand that his Ministers are now held in public ridicule and contempt, and is it not time that at least one of them resigned?

Gordon Brown: I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman has risen to the occasion today. Lord Myners has made it very clear that he was told of something that he was led to believe was a contractual obligation but was a discretionary matter. That is the issue that UK Financial Investments Ltd is taking up with the Royal Bank of Scotland; that is the basis on which we are considering legal action; and that is the basis on which UKFI will use its votes in the annual general meeting to promote legal action.

Stephen Hepburn: The Prime Minister knows that many unfortunate people in this country have been negligently poisoned in the workplace through exposure to asbestos. Every time that their right to compensation has been challenged in the courts by employers, it has been this Labour Government who have stood by them and helped them. What does he intend to do about the thousands of predominantly working-class pleural plaques sufferers who have been robbed of their compensation by unjust decisions in the law courts?

Gordon Brown: Asbestosis is a terrible disease, and all those who suffer from it deserve the best of help from the public authorities. It is right that we look again at this as a result of legal actions that have been taken about the obligations of insurance companies. The Justice Secretary will make a statement on this when we return after Easter.

David Cameron: On behalf of all Conservative Members, I join the Prime Minister in welcoming President Obama and the First Lady, and all the other Presidents and Prime Ministers, to our country this week.
	Before turning to the G20, may I ask the Prime Minister about the issue of MPs' expenses?  [ Interruption. ] MPs may groan, but frankly I am fed up with our politics being dragged through the mud. We need a solution that is transparent, costs less than the current arrangements, and restores faith in the political process. Is it not the case that we cannot wait for another review, and that this needs to be agreed now? So instead of another review, will the Prime Minister agree to an urgent meeting between the main party leaders so that we can sort this out once and for all?

Gordon Brown: I agree and have said on many occasions that this whole system has to be reformed and improved. I think that there is common ground in this House that it brings no repute to MPs if we are continually having to deal with these issues. We have made some changes, by the will of the House, to the way that expenses are documented, to the way that the Green Book is organised, and to the way that people are obliged to account for their expenditures of money. Both the parties agreed that the Committee on Standards in Public Life could do a good job in looking at these issues. Of course I am happy to meet the leaders of the Opposition parties to discuss this, but to restore public confidence in the matter the Committee will have to complete its review as well, and I have asked it to speed up that review so that it is completed as quickly as possible.

David Cameron: Frankly, the problem is that we do not need another review. Let us be clear: this is exactly what happened last time. The Prime Minister supported a review, he sent it a letter and when it came up with conclusions, he did not vote for them. [Hon. Members: "Nor did you."] I did vote for them. The public are sick and tired of this situation, and it requires political leadership. That means political leaders making decisions, which means the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberals and me. I ask the Prime Minister again: will he have that meeting of party leaders so that we can sort this out? May we have it, instead of a review, not in six months' time, not in a year's time, but right now?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman wrote his question before he heard my first answer. I said I was quite happy to meet him and the leader of the Liberal party to discuss these issues, but he has to remember that if we in this House are to command public confidence for what we do, we need to satisfy the Committee on Standards in Public Life as well as ourselves. The whole purpose of the discussions we have had in recent years is to take MPs' pay out of politics, so that it is not MPs who are held responsible for the original recommendations on pay, or for voting for them. I believe that we have to satisfy more than ourselves on the standards we apply in public life. Yes, I am prepared to talk to the right hon. Gentleman, but he should agree to what was agreed before: that the Committee on Standards in Public Life should continue to review this issue and report as quickly as possible.

David Cameron: The problem is that we can all hear the rustling of the long grass.
	Let me turn to the G20. At the last meeting of the G20 in Washington, the leaders signed up to an important pledge on free trade, but as the CBI said, there were
	"airy promises about completing the Doha world trade deal and rejecting protectionism",
	but that
	"Since then, the world has moved backwards, with the majority of G20 countries pushing up barriers".
	What assurances can the Prime Minister give us that this time it really will be different?

Gordon Brown: The significance of the G20 meeting is that the world is coming together to discuss detailed proposals on trade and other issues to deal with the problems of the day. I do not think we have had a situation before where Russia, China, India, Argentina, Brazil, all the European countries, Japan and America have come together to see whether we can agree shared policies. In 1929 we had the Wall street crash, and in 1945 we had the first meeting of world leaders that was successful in discussing the issues. We are not going to wait for 16 years; we are taking action now.
	On the specifics of trade, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have pushed hard in the last few months to get a trade deal round the world. We were pushing before Christmas, under President Bush, so that an agreement could be reached. The problem that is still outstanding—it will help the discussion if I explain it—is that India wanted assurances about a special safeguard mechanism if there were to be a surge of imports. America wanted an assurance that sectoral agreements would be in line with the general agreement that was to be signed on world trade. The American Administration asked us, as they are a new Administration, for some time in the next few weeks to review their position. Given that they are a new Administration, we have to understand that they will want to look at their position, but I am hopeful about that. I am pressing them on this matter, as I did when I talked to President Obama on the phone yesterday before I met him today. The World Trade Organisation needs an answer, and we need to move forward.
	What we will achieve at the summit is this: first of all, we will name and shame countries— [ Interruption. ] Well, Mr. Speaker— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister speak.  [ Interruption. ] Order. It is always the case that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition get leeway. Let the Prime Minister speak.

Gordon Brown: First, we will name and shame countries that are not prepared to abide by the standards that we are setting. Secondly, we will want to provide trade credits for the future so that we can see world trade expanding by supporting it with at least £100 billion of credit, and thirdly, we will push very hard so that the differences that exist, which other countries have resolved, can also be resolved in America and India.

David Cameron: I am grateful for the Prime Minister's answer, but the fact is that the naming and shaming process was actually agreed in Washington in November at the G20 meeting. Since then, the World Bank has produced a paper stating that 17 of the 20 countries involved have actually implemented measures that have restricted trade. Everyone understands that the new American Administration need time, but clearly the biggest boost for the world economy would be the completion of the Doha trade round, so does the Prime Minister agree with me that the greatest success for the G20 would be to set a credible pathway and a credible timetable to a full Doha agreement?

Gordon Brown: That is one of the things we are trying to achieve, but I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot avoid the difficult questions about this G20. We are in the midst of the biggest fiscal stimulus that the world has ever seen, and only the Conservative party seems to be opposing it. We are in the midst of the biggest cuts in interest rates that the world has seen and we are restructuring our banking system. Yes, I agree that trade is important, and that is why I have pushed for it very hard, but I think he understood that when I said that America wanted some time to consider the position that was a barrier to getting an agreement immediately. We will push forward on trade, but we will also push forward on the other measures that are necessary for an economic recovery. I just repeat that nobody coming to London has a policy of doing nothing.

David Cameron: There is someone right here in London who said that we cannot afford another fiscal stimulus, and that is the Governor of the Bank of England. I do not know whether the Prime Minister fully understands what happened last week. While he was wandering around the rest of the world telling them how to run their economies, the Governor of the Bank of England was saying right here that the Prime Minister did not know how to run ours. The fact is that the Governor of the Bank of England very publicly snipped up his credit card. That is what happened last week.
	Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the real test of the G20 is whether confidence returns? So here in Britain, will he agree that with the budget deficit at more than 10 per cent. of GDP, a big, big part of restoring confidence is going to be restoring those public finances?

Gordon Brown: Once again, the Conservative party is misinterpreting what is happening in the world and getting everything wrong. The stimulus that has been proposed in Germany is £75 billion. In France it is £24 billion, in China £400 billion and in Japan £42 billion. There is not one country in the world following the advice of the Conservative party. The real issue at this summit is that some people are prepared to take the action to get people through what is a global problem that needs global solutions. The Conservative party reveals in its questions that it is still the do nothing party of the past.

David Cameron: I have to say that this "do nothing" attack has done absolutely nothing for the Prime Minister. Ever since he started making it, he has been going down and we have been going up. It says nothing about us, but so much about him and his approach to the dividing-line politics of the past. Of course other countries that did fix the roof while the sun was shining can afford a fiscal stimulus, but the Governor of the Bank of England said, quite rightly, that we cannot afford one here.
	On the G20, everyone wants a global agreement on issues such as trade, the IMF and tax havens, but is it not important to understand that once the talks are over, Britain will still be left with the most appalling public finances? We are spending £4 for every £3 that we raise. This is a domestic problem, and no international agreement is going to resolve it. Do not these difficult circumstances teach us one very important lesson? We should never leave Britain this exposed again.

Gordon Brown: If we do not take action, things will get a great deal worse— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Gordon Brown: The rehearsals will make no difference, because this is not about the party games that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. This is about lives, jobs, homes and businesses. I have not heard him once today talk about the problems of the unemployed and the people whom we are trying help. He said that we cannot afford a fiscal stimulus. That is his position, so he would cut the pension, cut child benefit, not go ahead with the help to small businesses or to home owners, not go ahead with advancing public investment—everything that we are doing to take this country through the downturn, he opposes. I hope that people in every constituency know that Conservative party policy is to cut the pension, cut child benefit and cut public works. That is the policy of the Conservative party.

Gisela Stuart: I fully appreciate that the G20 is mainly about economic issues, but should the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues get a chance to talk to our Russian colleagues, will he remind them that human rights remain extremely important, and that action such as raiding the Memorial offices in St. Petersburg or threatening to destroy the Stalin archives is not worthy of a great country?

Gordon Brown: Every time I meet President Medvedev, I remind him of our differences with Russia over some of those very issues, and I will continue to do so when I meet him this afternoon. There have been difficulties in the relationship between Britain and Russia, but it is important to recognise that we want Russia to work with us on a middle east peace settlement and in dealing with the problems of Iran, and we want to work together with Russia to achieve multilateral disarmament and ensure that the non-proliferation treaty works. Those are all issues on which I believe we can work with Russia.

Nicholas Clegg: We all want this G20 summit to succeed. The Prime Minister is right to say that we will not get out of this mess unless world leaders work together. However, the summit will not help anybody here unless he practises at home what he preaches abroad. On his world tour, he railed against tax avoidance, yet he presided over industrial-scale tax avoidance in British banks and British businesses. He now talks about green-collar jobs, yet his fiscal stimulus has less green stimulus than any other fiscal stimulus in the G20. Does he not see that leadership starts at home?

Gordon Brown: Let me tell the leader of the Liberal party that for the first time we are on the verge of an agreement, which means that every country that was previously a tax haven will have to exchange tax information on request. So with Switzerland, Andorra, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore—all the countries with which we have been trying to get agreement for 20 years; I do not know whether the Conservative party wants those agreements, but we have been trying to get them for 20 years—we will get agreements at this summit. The issue of tax havens has moved to a new level, where we are dealing with the problem.
	On a green stimulus, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman finds that the communiqué reflects the desire in all countries of the world that we do not return to business as usual on the environment, that the recovery is low carbon, and that we will do whatever we can, now and in the Budget, to move that forward.

Nicholas Clegg: The words sound good—they always do—but now the Prime Minister has to do what he says. He is the only G20 leader who has blown billions of pounds of borrowed money on a wasteful VAT cut that has not created a single job. Why should any other leader listen to his lessons? Is it not time for him to admit his mistake, announce at the summit tomorrow that he will stop the wasteful VAT cut, and invest the billions of pounds in creating the jobs and homes that this country desperately needs now?

Gordon Brown: On the environment, we are the first Government in the world to sign climate change legislation that will commit us to statutory cuts in carbon over the next few years. I know that the right hon. Gentleman's party does not seem to think it important, but we are leading the world, as we should, in the environmental debate.
	On VAT and other changes, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that one has to use all the weapons at one's disposal to deal with a global financial crisis. We have cut interest rates, the Bank of England is now putting money into the economy, we have advanced public works in the economy, and we have raised the pension and child benefit beyond the level that was expected in January. At the same time, we are giving income tax cuts, starting this week, by raising personal allowances. We are also helping the unemployed and home owners who find themselves in difficulty. That is the way to deal with the downturn: to take all measures necessary to get through it as quickly as possible.

David Winnick: Arising from what was said earlier, is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us fought against a Conservative private Member's Bill that would have exempted the House of Commons from the Freedom of Information Act? That being said, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely essential to have a system of allowances that MPs claim—most of them, of course, are for our staff—so that the public can have confidence that they are legitimate, above board and simply make sense? The sooner we have such a system, the better it will be for the reputation of the House of Commons.

Gordon Brown: I think I speak for all Members when I say that we want a better system that has proper audit and deals with the outstanding issues that have caused so much controversy. However, I have to say to all Members of the House that for that to command public confidence, it is not enough that one or two of us get together in a room; we have to ensure that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which we set up to deal with such issues, is also satisfied and can tell the public that the system is working better.

Paul Rowen: The Christie hospital, which is a world leader in the treatment of cancer, has recently lost £6.5 million owing to the Icelandic banking crisis—money that was earmarked for new radiography centres in Oldham and Salford. Given the Government's support for financial institutions, what is the Prime Minister doing to help the Christie to recover that money?

Gordon Brown: I have met nurses from the Christie hospital, who do a wonderful job in treating people with cancer. The Christie hospital is a world-class hospital and I praise it for what it does. I have said that I will meet its officials to look at the issues that they raise. Essentially, the issue relates to an Icelandic bank that was regulated not in Britain, but outside. For all banks that are regulated in Britain, we have guaranteed the deposits of savers. We will see what we can do, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the central issue is that the Christie hospital is not a charity with funds in a bank that is regulated in Britain. However, we will look at what we can do, and I once again praise the Christie hospital for what it achieves.

Denis Murphy: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Rio Tinto Alcan on the excellent work it is doing in my constituency on carbon capture and storage? The method that it has developed will protect both the environment and valuable local jobs. It is also a world first. Will he share that good news with his G20 colleagues and, more importantly, will he come to Lynemouth at his earliest convenience to see first hand the excellent work that is being done there?

Gordon Brown: Yes, I shall be happy to visit to see the progress that is being made in carbon capture and storage and in clean coal. That is an area where we can lead the world. I have been talking to the Norwegian Prime Minister, who has a carbon capture and storage plant under way. We want to work to move the technology forward quickly, and I know that the company in my hon. Friend's constituency, Rio Tinto Alcan, is doing a great job. I look forward to meeting the company and talking about how we can expand the technology.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Prime Minister recall when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer selling 400 tonnes of gold from the reserves, even though he was warned at the time that gold is a very good store of value when boom turns to bust? Given that today the price of gold is nearly four times higher than it was when he made those sales, what does that tell us about his ability to run any other aspect of the British economy, and will he apologise to the British people for making those enormous losses on their behalf?

Gordon Brown: I hesitate to say this, but it was a sale agreed with banks round the world, which all wanted to diversify out of gold. The right hon. Gentleman may know that many other countries were doing exactly what we were doing at that time. He loves Europe so much that he will hate me for saying this, but we bought euros and they have gone up in value.

Karen Buck: There are not many traumas worse than being thrown out of one's home. The Government have rightly concentrated on trying to help the people facing repossession because of mortgage arrears. Yet a constituent of mine who is gravely ill with cancer has been told by Conservative-controlled Westminster council's housing arm that she is being taken to court, and faces eviction and court costs, for owing just £390. Does my right hon. Friend share my shock at that behaviour? Is it not right that councils and other landlords should concentrate on cracking down on such behaviour and supporting vulnerable people through these difficult times?

Gordon Brown: Our duty in these difficult times is to help people who are in difficulty and in need. That is why we have made greater provision available for housing at this difficult time. I do not know the details of the case of my hon. Friend's constituent, but it seems to me that someone who is suffering from cancer and who is aged should not be evicted, and I shall look into the matter.

Mark Hunter: The Metropolitan police in London now have dedicated community policing teams consisting of six officers in every local government ward. They have a sergeant, two police constables and three police community support officers. Could the Prime Minister— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak. It is no use anyone shouting.

Mark Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister please tell me when my constituents in Cheadle and residents across the rest of the country will enjoy the same level of community policing?

Gordon Brown: I hesitate to say this, because the hon. Gentleman knows what is happening in his constituency, but there is neighbourhood policing in every part of England as a result of the decisions that we have made. I shall certainly look into what he has said, but we have been very keen to set up these neighbourhood policing arrangements so that people can see local police on the beat and consult them. They are informed by the local police about what is happening, and they can text, e-mail or telephone the local police to get information. Our aim is to have neighbourhood policing in every community in the country, and that is possible only because we are ready to invest in the police.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will vividly remember the damage that was done by unemployment as a result of the failed economic policies of previous Tory Governments, when we were told that unemployment was a price worth paying. Will he give my constituents a guarantee that, in his conversations with the G20 and in the Budget, keeping people in work and getting those who are unemployed back into work will be the absolute priority for this Government, even if it is not for the Opposition?

Gordon Brown: Like my hon. Friend, I came into politics because I was concerned about unemployment, and unemployment is what we want to address. That is why, in the next few days, we are introducing our programme to help those who have been unemployed for six months to get new chances of training and new chances of getting into work. We are investing substantial sums of money in helping people at the time they become unemployed, to prevent them from becoming unemployed and to help them if they are unemployed. I believe that that is possible only because we are prepared to make the choice and say that it is right not to do nothing, and that it is right to take action and to invest in helping employment in this country.

Alistair Burt: But the Government's working capital scheme, which was supposed to start on 1 March, has so far not produced anything. Unemployment in my constituency has increased by 152 per cent. in a year. Why has no company in my constituency received any money from the working capital scheme set up by the Government?

Gordon Brown: First, £1 billion has been agreed for that scheme already. Secondly, 100,000 companies across the country, and many in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, will be receiving help from the Inland Revenue and from Customs and Excise. That help is now worth about £1.8 billion as a result of the decisions that we made to put public money into these programmes. I cannot see how he can come here and ask us to do more, when the whole policy of his party is to do less.

Laura Moffatt: Cancer is a devastating diagnosis to receive, but today is a significant day because cancer-related prescriptions will now be free for everyone. This will give comfort to people in that situation. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in order to provide excellent services in Crawley and the surrounding area, West Sussex primary care trust delivers on its plan to have a linear accelerator in the community, which will add to those fantastic services?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to help to review and improve radiotherapy capacity in her constituency, and we will be developing a comprehensive business plan that will cover the current and projected needs of her constituency. Let me also say that we have made a decision that is right for patients who are suffering from cancer—that is, to provide free prescriptions. That has been introduced today, and I believe it is a substantial step forward in recognising the pain and suffering that cancer patients have to go through. I hope that it will have support in all parts of the House.

Nadine Dorries: It is not brain surgery to keep a hospital clean or to assist a patient to eat or to drink out of something other than a vase. Will the Prime admit and agree with me that Government targets, while providing substance for spin, have actually damaged nursing priorities and patient care?

Gordon Brown: If we removed the obligations, cancer patients would not be given the right to be seen by a clinician within two weeks of going to a doctor. If we removed the target, there would not be an 18-week period between the point at which people go to a doctor and the point at which they have an operation. Patients in the national health service have the right to expect the best of treatments, and I think it important to say that if the Opposition will not provide these guarantees, we will provide them to the patients of this country.

Eric Joyce: It is 10 years since the introduction of the minimum wage in the UK. It is not in the history syllabus yet, as far as I am aware, but I recollect that not everybody in this place agreed with it. Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating something that has helped millions of British working people?

Gordon Brown: More than 2 million people benefit from the fact that, for the first time, there is a national minimum wage in this country. I believe that the rises in the minimum wage are an important element of giving people decent wages in the workplace. I hope that, despite the disagreements of the past, there is now all-party agreement that a civilised society needs a minimum wage for people who are in work; we are determined to retain it.

Points of Order

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Wednesday, there was a House of Commons meeting between Leeds MPs and the Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber to discuss the Leeds Arena scheme. Despite the fact that I tabled an early-day motion in support of the scheme and have been very vocal about it, I was not invited to attend that meeting. As you are aware, this is not the first time it has happened, as the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wrongly accused me of not going to a meeting that I was not even invited to. Do you agree that when there is a meeting between Ministers and Leeds MPs, all Leeds MPs should be invited, not just Labour ones?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but I would say that if there were an issue affecting Glasgow, I, as a Glasgow Member of Parliament, would expect to be invited to any meeting. I convey that message: if a meeting is specifically for Leeds Members of Parliament, I would expect every Leeds MP to be invited. That is a simple courtesy that should be extended to every Member of Parliament, no matter what city or region we are talking about.

Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, Langley Park school for boys in my constituency suffered a cut of 3.7 per cent. in its sixth-form funding for some 600 pupils. That cut takes effect today and I understand that it is not the only school affected in this way. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Culture, Schools and Families to come to explain to the House what is wrong with the learning and skills councils and what he plans to do to fix these appalling cuts, which could mean many teachers losing their jobs?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is up to Ministers to come to the House to make statements.

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Home Office has in recent times developed a habit of issuing written parliamentary answers to the media before they are received by Members of Parliament. That was taken to an extreme last weekend when it issued a written parliamentary statement to the media on Sunday, when it would clearly have been impossible for an MP to gain access to it until the following day. May I ask you, if you are in a position to do so, to issue guidance to Departments stating that it is inappropriate to issue formal written parliamentary questions to the media before Members have had a chance to receive and read them?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is categorically saying that this was a written parliamentary statement, then it should be put to the House of Commons first. I will look further into this matter and I take it very seriously. Let me be specific: a parliamentary statement must not be issued to any body other than this House of Commons.

Chris Grayling: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should make it clear that I was referring to written parliamentary questions. [Hon. Members: "Written answers."] I mean written parliamentary answers.

Mr. Speaker: A written answer is different from a statement. A written answer should be published for the House of Commons. Obviously, if a Member of Parliament has tabled a question, the answer should go to that Member of Parliament first, and it should not be produced on a Sunday when Members of Parliament are working and doing other things. I shall have to look into the matter, because a rebutting argument may be presented, but that is what I say.

Registration of Births and Deaths (Welsh Language)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Hywel Williams: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the registration of births and deaths where particulars are given in Welsh and English; to permit certificates of particulars of entries of registers of births and deaths to be in Welsh or English only in such circumstances; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill would amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. It aims to allow registration in English and Welsh when a birth or death has occurred in England, and to allow certificates to be issued in either language as well as bilingually. It also provides for the issuing of short death certificates.
	The 1953 Act requires that a birth or death be registered by the registrar of the district in which the event takes place, but since 1 April 1969, 40 years ago today, births, stillbirths and deaths in Wales may be registered in both Welsh and English when a qualified informant is able to give information in Welsh to a registrar who can speak and understand Welsh. Certificates may then be issued which are either bilingual or in English only. Welsh-only certificates are not allowed, and registration in England is currently only possible in English. Short birth certificates may be issued, but death certificates are allowed only in the long form.
	Some families from Wales travel to England for the birth of a child, either to obtain specialist care at the birth or because their areas are normally served by hospitals in England. I am thinking in particular of families from north Wales who may have to travel to Merseyside and, indeed, beyond in an emergency, and also of families from Powys who might normally cross the border to Shropshire or Herefordshire to obtain hospital care at the birth. Furthermore, some people from Wales receive their end-of-life care in hospitals in England, again because of the need for specialist care or because that is the normal arrangement where they live. Quite reasonably, families in those circumstances may wish to register such significant events in Welsh. The language is both a signifier and a definer of the identity of their loved ones.
	In 1999, my colleague Lord Elis-Thomas introduced a Bill similar to this, which was passed in the other place but did not proceed in this House owing to lack of time. A Bill to the same effect was published by our erstwhile colleague Mr. Gareth Thomas, then Member of Parliament for Clwyd, West, but it too proceeded no further, again owing to lack of time. Indeed, the need for at least one of these reforms—the bilingual registration of births in England—was noted as long ago as 1990, in the White Paper "Registration: proposals for change". Lord Elis-Thomas and Gareth Thomas benefited at that time from the advice of the Office for National Statistics, and also worked closely with the Welsh Language Board. I am glad to acknowledge the help given by the board in the preparation of the Bill.
	All three Bills would overcome the deficiency that families face by establishing a central register of births, stillbirths and deaths occurring in England when Welsh speakers wish for a bilingual certificate. In practice, the Welsh-speaking informant would be able to make a declaration of the particulars to be registered, not in the district where the event occurred but before a suitable registrar in Wales. That registrar would then send the declaration to the registrar for the district in England where the event occurred, and it would be registered in the normal way. The declaration would also be forwarded to the Registrar General, who would record the details in the central register in both Welsh and English. A certificate could then be issued. That would enable the details, in future years, always to be available in both languages.
	The Bill would also allow certificates to be issued from the bilingual entry in Welsh or English only, thus ensuring that at last both languages would be treated equally—as noted in the Welsh Language Act 1993, passed by the Conservative Administration. Bilingual certificates would continue to be available under this Bill, and I suspect that that would remain the usual choice for most families. The Bill would also allow for short death certificates, so as to exclude details of the cause of death, which sometimes cause great distress to families.
	I understand that there are no significant staffing implications for public services from the Bill. The cost of establishing a central register would be minimal and would be paid for by the sale of certificates. The measure raises no human rights issues.
	The law concerning the Welsh language has developed over many years, from the Acts of Union in the 16th century whose penalising clauses in effect banished the Welsh language from its previous position in the official domain—as an official language, I would even chance to say—to the modest reform of the Welsh Courts Act 1942, the landmark Welsh Language Act 1967, and subsequently the Act of 1993.
	At present the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is taking evidence on a Welsh language legislative competence order. If passed, that will transfer the Welsh language powers from Westminster to the National Assembly for Wales. However, registration of births and deaths is not included in that LCO, hence the need for this Bill.
	On 17 March, I proposed a range of suitable amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill on Report, but they were not reached. However, I am glad to say that the Government agree with elements of this Bill and agree that they are needed. I refer the House to an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales:
	"the Government remain firmly committed to producing Welsh language certificates, and the General Register Office is exploring the best way to do that...I reiterate that we are firmly committed to pursuing that path. "—[ Official Report, 11 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 283.]
	I also have here a copy of a letter to Mr. Gareth Thomas from a then Minister at the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), in which she shares her disappointment that his
	"useful Bill failed to complete its passage through the Commons."
	That was in 1999. She continued:
	"The ONS has bid for the Bill to be reintroduced and the Chief Secretary has approved its inclusion on the Treasury's list of Government handout Bills for the next session.
	If, by any misfortune, the Bill fails to succeed in the next session, we will take the opportunity to include its provisions within any legislation that follows from the current review of civil registration."
	I am of course glad of the Government's historic support on this issue, but I note that some nine years have passed since that "glad and confident" letter. I hope therefore that their support can now be translated into a commitment of parliamentary time.
	I am by nature an optimist, but I am reminded of a point made in Ned Thomas's seminal work "The Welsh Extremist: A Culture in Crisis" in 1971, in which he pointed out that the Welsh language so often had
	"high prestige and low priority".
	More poetically, T.H. Parry Williams, in one of his finest sonnets, says of the language:
	"Cei ganmol hon fel canmol jwg ar seld
	Ond gwna hi'n hanfod ac fe gei di weld",
	which translates as,
	"You may praise her as you would a jug on a dresser
	But make her essential and then you'll see".
	This Bill has wide support in Wales and I am grateful today for the support of Welsh Members on both sides of the House and Members from across the border—

Angus MacNeil: And the other border.

Hywel Williams: And the other border.
	Birth and death are the most significant events in life, the alpha and the omega. It is proper and humane, and in my view a fundamental right, that these events be marked in one's own language. Those happy parents and those grieving families who by force of circumstance find themselves unable to do so merely by the accident of location have waited fully 40 years for this day and for this reform.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Hywel Williams, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Adam Price, Mr. Dai Davies, Mark Williams, Dr. Hywel Francis and Michael Fabricant present the Bill.
	Hywel Williams accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 83).

Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords]

Second Reading

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This Bill seeks to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, but the Vote Office does not have a copy of that Act. That is a very unfortunate state of affairs. Should not this debate be delayed until the Vote Office has a copy of that Act?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can do that. I will instruct the officials to ensure that the Act is made available in the Vote Office, but we cannot delay the proceedings.

Gillian Merron: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill will give effect to two international agreements. The aim of both is to protect those who help others caught up in conflict—those who risk their lives to provide humanitarian support to others. The enactment of the Bill will enable the UK to become a party to the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions and the optional protocol to the convention on the safety of the United Nations and associated personnel.
	This is a fitting moment to seek support for improvements to the Geneva conventions as it is this year that the conventions celebrate their 60th anniversary. They are universally recognised as enshrining the main principles of international humanitarian law. They oblige every state in the world to abide by the rules of war in order to limit the effects of armed conflict. They help to ensure that the wounded and the sick receive treatment; that prisoners and refugees are treated humanely; and that all civilians are protected from unnecessary harm.
	The UK has, of course, always been at the forefront of developing and promoting the rules in the Geneva conventions and, by enacting this Bill, we will show the UK's support for the latest improvements to these rules and our continuing commitment to the development of international humanitarian law.

Lembit �pik: I am obviously minded to support the Bill. It is a question of process. Often the biggest frustration for free countries is the inability to bring obvious offenderspeople such as Robert Mugabeto justice for violations of civil liberties. Is it the Minister's view that the Bill will improve our capacity to bring to justice people around the world who clearly have no regard for human rights?

Gillian Merron: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not within the scope of the Bill, for reasons that I will go on to outline.
	I know that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in thanking the British Red Cross Society for the co-operation that it has given us in preparing and promoting this important Bill. Members will also join me in commending the magnificent work done by the British Red Cross, both in the UK and overseas, where it co-operates with other national societies, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to which I also pay tribute.

Greg Knight: Hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to associate ourselves with what the Minister has just said about the Red Cross, but will the Bill have any consequences for the name of the Red Cross? For example, in the future, will it have to be called the Red Cross and Red Crystal society?

Gillian Merron: No, I am assured that the current arrangements will stay, and I will, of course, explain our default position on the use of symbols. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. Of course, we all share a common view of the work that is done on our behalf.
	Most people are well aware of the life-saving work done by the Red Cross during times of conflict or when natural disasters strike, but I should like to put on record the kind of work that the Red Cross also does to save and improve lives in many other ways. First, it provides first aid training for thousands of ordinary people, so that they can take the right steps when confronted by serious injury. Secondly, it helps communities vulnerable to natural disasters to prepare for the worst and to work in advance against the possible effects of floods, earthquakes, fires and weather-related disasters. Thirdly, it promotes the international laws that help to minimise the negative effects of wars and other conflicts on civilians and combatants.

Michael Fabricant: In welcoming the work of the Red Cross, will the Minister include the work of the Red Crescent and the Red Star of Davidthe Magen David Adom?

Gillian Merron: Of course, I am very happy to do so.
	Such work helps us all, of course, and we should be proud of and grateful for it. I very much welcome the sentiments expressed in early-day motion 1224, which was tabled this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), to support the Our World. Your Move campaign. I am grateful for the eagle-eyed attention of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in alerting me to the fact that the impact assessment was not, as it should have been, available in good time before the debate. I apologise to the House that that happened due to administrative error, and I assure the House that the impact assessment has now been made available.
	I now come to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 will amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to allow the ratification of the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions. The protocol provides for the use of a new humanitarian emblemthe red crystalin addition to the existing emblems, the red cross and the red crescent. The UK Government and the British Red Cross played a significant role in securing international agreement for the adoption of the red crystal. The symbol is already widely accepted, as 38 states have already ratified the third additional protocol. Like the other two emblems, the red crystal is designed to be a protective symbol for humanitarian personnel in armed conflict.
	It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the idea of a protective symbol came from a Swiss business manHenri Dunantwho was travelling on business some 150 years ago and, by chance, happened to witness the battle of Solferino in Italy. During the battle, some 40,000 men from both sides were killed or wounded, and Dunant was shocked to see the wounded left on the battlefield without proper medical care. He therefore broke off his business trip and spent the next few days helping to do all that he could himself and convincing the locals also to help the wounded. He went on to found the Red Cross and establish the emblem of a red cross on a white background to help to identify those providing assistance.
	I was fascinated to read the Red Cross literature, which told me that the emblem is a reversal of the colours and design of the Swiss flag. The symbol, as we know, has been used ever since. Its use has undoubtedly saved many livesthe lives of those providing humanitarian assistance, as well as lives saved by humanitarian acts. The red crescent emblem was given the same function in about 1879. Both symbols represent the protection of the medical services of the armed forces and the injured under the Geneva conventions. More recently, that protection has been extended to include civilian medical services.
	As we know, however, conflicts have become more complex and the scope for the misunderstanding of those emblems has undoubtedly increased. In some situations, the red cross and the red crescent perhaps can be seen as having a religious, cultural or political connotation, which is not appropriate, accurate or intended in the settings in which it is used. Therefore, the red crystal has been introduced to ensure that a clear and neutral symbol exists for all to use. It can be used wherever the use of the other two symbols might be misinterpreted and therefore may not provide the protection that we would all seek to ensure. The red crystal symbol can also be used by national societies of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movementfor example, in Israel and Eritreawhere people may feel unable to identify with either the cross or the crescent or do not want to have to choose between the two.

John Bercow: Who will determine the circumstances in which the red crystal, as distinct from either alternative, will be used?

Gillian Merron: That is a matter on which the appropriate movement in-country will make a decision. As I will go on to say, our default position will be to use the red cross; but in all cases, we will consider the circumstances of the conflict and make a decision for our own part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
	The creation of the red crystal was part of a package that paved the way for the Israeli and the Palestinian national societies to join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in 2006. That has offered the movement the opportunity to achieve its goal of universalityagain, something that we would all support.
	The United Kingdom signed the third protocol in December 2005. Once the protocol is ratified, our Defence Medical Services will be able to use any of the three distinctive emblems. As I have already stated, we will continue to use the red cross as our main humanitarian emblem; but in any conflict, our armed forces will be able to choose the emblem that is likely to afford the maximum protection to their medical services and their patients. For instance, British troops deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq can use the red crystal or the red crescent, rather than the red cross, as a protective symbol for their medical units if they believe that doing so would improve their safety.

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister help us on the use of the red lion and sun? In 1980, the Islamic Republic of Iran declared that it was waiving its right to use those symbols and would use instead the red crescent as its distinctive symbol, but it reserved the right to return to the red lion and sun if new emblems were recognised. By recognising this new emblem, are we creating the danger that the Islamic Republic of Iran may wish to revert to the use of the red lion and sun, thereby creating another symbol?

Gillian Merron: We are introducing clarity and reminding ourselves why we have international emblems. The three emblems form the basis of use and protection; they are clearly and absolutely recognised; and there can be no misunderstanding. In-country, for example, if a local society wished to use the red crystal with a red cross inside, it could do so. However, I am talking aboutthis is what hon. Members are concerned aboutthe protection provided in conflict situations.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, because I do not think that she understood my point, which is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has given due warning that if symbols in addition to the red cross and red crescent were enacted, it would reserve the right to revert to the use of the red sun. I want to find out from the Minister whether or not that threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran is still on the table.

Gillian Merron: My understanding is that there has been no indication that Iran would wish to revert to using those symbols, and I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Fraser: Does the Minister accept that using various symbols in different areas gives rise to the problem addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope)? In the future, more symbols may well be introduced because of the circumstances that are presented, and that could cause more confusion, rather than coherence in what the Red Cross is trying to achieve.

Gillian Merron: No, I do not share that view. Indeed, let us remember that the impetus has come from the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, which recognises the difficulties and limitations of having two emblems. Therefore, rightly and sensibly, with a lot of hard work and negotiation, we have found that the adoption of the red crystal is getting us through the kind of difficulties that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about.

Bill Wiggin: I have been listening carefully to the Minister, but she has not really answered the question about the people who have been ignoring red crosses and red crescents but who are not going to ignore a red diamond or crystal, or whatever she wants to call it. Will she answer that question now? What evidence is there that the approach has worked in the field of combat?

Gillian Merron: I have been in discussions with the British Red Cross and I know how much support there is for this Bill. I also know how much support exists internationally, among people who operate in the field. They have requested us to take the legislative action necessary to make available an additional option that they do not have at the moment. That is why we are here today.
	This is about sensitivity to the situation. As I said in my opening comments, there are concerns that the red cross or red crescent might be incorrectly interpreted. That is why the international movement has come forward with this proposal for the red crystal symbol. I think that it is the correct option.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is very reasonable, and is addressing the House in her usual mellifluous tones. I am minded to support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I am a bit befuddled about one thing; I hope that she can release me from my ignorance before long. There are three clauses in the Bill, and clause 3 deals with commencement. It specifies that the other two clauses will come into effect, by statutory instrument, on a date to be decided by Ministers. The measure is important and reasonably urgent, so when will the instrument be brought forward?

Gillian Merron: I am afraid that I cannot tell the House that at this stage, but I shall be glad to do so in my closing remarks.
	By ratifying the third protocol, we will show our continuing commitment to the development of international humanitarian law. As required by the additional protocol, the Bill will amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to make it a criminal offence to misuse the red crystal symbol, as is currently the case with the other two symbols.
	Clause 2 amends the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 to give effect to the optional protocol to the convention on the safety of UN and associated personnel.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous in giving way. However, I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). If she cannot answer now, perhaps she will be able to answer at the end of the debate. As I understand it, the red crystal symbol has been in force internationally since 14 January 2007. Why has the Bill taken so long to get here? Why does its commencement provision not use the word forthwith?

Gillian Merron: To do full justice to that question, I shall deal with it in my closing remarks.
	The optional protocol allows states to agree to extra measures to increase the legal protection of UN and associated personnel engaged in UN operations. The UN began providing legal protection to its personnel in 1994, when it adopted the convention on the safety of UN and associated personnel in response to rising casualties among UN peacekeepers and others. The convention makes three requirements of member states: that they prevent and punish, through domestic criminal law, attacks on UN personnel and others associated with UN operations; that they extradite the perpetrators of such acts; and that they implement other ancillary measures.
	The scope of the convention is relatively narrow, applying to UN operations in only two categories. The first category covers those operations designed to maintain or restore international peace and security, and the second covers those operations that the UN Security Council or General Assembly has declared pose an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in them. That narrow scope of protection has been heavily criticised, in particular by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who called repeatedly for a protocol to extend the protection to those UN personnel not otherwise covered. That call was echoed at the world summit in September 2005.

Christopher Fraser: By passing the Bill, Britain will be setting an example for other nations. Does the Minister agree that the optional protocol must also be adopted by those countries where personnel are at greatest risk?

Gillian Merron: That is an extremely important point, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Bill is unlikely to have an impact on UK soil, but it will send a very clear message to other nations.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Gillian Merron: In a moment, but I want to continue explaining how we came to this point.
	As I said, the call by Kofi Annan was echoed at the world summit of September 2005. In response, the UN General Assembly adopted an optional protocol to the 1994 convention in December of that year. That protocol extends the scope of protection to two new categoriesto operations for the purpose of delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peace building, and to operations for the purpose of delivering emergency humanitarian assistance. As the House will be aware, those measures aresadlyas necessary today as they have been in the past.

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister tell us about enforcement? Even without the extension, can she assure the House that the existing arrangements are being enforced? Most people know that, although the UN or this Parliament may say something about Darfur, for example, there is outright defiance of these conventions on the ground.

John Bercow: Chope the humanitarian!

Gillian Merron: It is true that the protocol has to be applied through domestic criminal law, and that we are not able to track whether there have been prosecutions of people who have attacked UN personnel. However, the protocol is designed to correct the weakness in coverage that does reflect the current situation. That is why the Bill is before the House today.
	Thankfully, the global conflicts that typified the first half of the 20th century have been avoided, but continuing regional, bilateral and internal conflicts have brought just as much suffering to the people caught up in them. The Red Cross and Red Crescent has worked to minimise that suffering, but the UN high commissioner for refugees told the Security Council earlier this year that the deliberate targeting of humanitarian workers in such conflicts has increased. As well as being deeply shocking, that worrying new trend puts UN humanitarian staff in an impossibly difficult situation. Do they act to keep themselves and their colleagues safe, or do they continue to try to deliver effective humanitarian assistance to those desperately in need?

Christopher Fraser: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I am asking my questions in interventions rather than in a speech as I have to attend a Select Committee very shortly. When the UN's sixth committee proposed the terms of the optional protocol to the convention on the safety of UN personnel, there was some concern that the term peace building was not properly defined. What does she understand the term to mean now?

Gillian Merron: The hon. Gentleman is right, and we will miss his presence in the Chamber later. The term peace building does not have an agreed definition but, according to the UN, it covers a wide range of activities associated with capacity building, reconciliation and societal transformation. He will know that peace building is a long process that happens after violent conflict has slowed or come to a halt. The Bill is important because it recognises that there has been a change in the work that UN personnel do on our behalf
	I said earlier that UN humanitarian workers face an impossible choice, one that none of us would want to make. However, we should do everything possible to make sure that those courageous men and women acting in our name should not have to confront that choice. If they are to continue to fulfil their vital roles in the most difficult of situations, they must have the full weight of international law behind them. When we held the EU presidency, we played a leading role in securing the adoption of the optional protocol by the General Assembly. By ratifying the optional protocol, the UK will once again demonstrate its commitment to protecting humanitarian aid workersa commitment that I know all right hon. and hon. Members share.

Greg Knight: Before the Minister concludes, will she make reference to the European convention on human rights? If my memory is correct, clause 1 of the Bill might be seen as a control on the use of property within that convention, and the clause might therefore fall foul of the convention.

Gillian Merron: I can assure the House that the Bill stands alone, and gives effect to the points that I have outlined. As hon. Members have pointed out, ratifying will encourage other states to sign and ratify the optional protocol. It will help to convince yet more states to become parties to the 1994 convention. We have the opportunity today to set an example. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Lidington: I very much welcome the Bill, which fills two gaps in the domestic application of international humanitarian law. If, by any chance, there should be a Division later today, I shall certainly support the Government in voting in favour of a Second Reading.
	As there is to be no separate debate on the programme motion that the Government tabled today alongside the motion on Second Reading, I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I start by making a few brief comments on that programme motion. I welcome the Government's decision that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. That is a welcome departure from a practice that has been too frequent in recent years; Bills that once would have been open to debate in Committee by all right hon. and hon. Member have been shunted upstairs for truncated scrutiny there, so this is a welcome change. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office rarely has primary legislation before the House, and I am glad that it is, on this occasion, setting an example to other Departments. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), are able to persuade their fellow Ministers that it is an example that other Departments would do well to follow.
	I temper my welcome just a little bit by expressing disappointment that the programme motion provides for proceedings in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading to be completed all within a single parliamentary day. The Bill has cross-party support, but in my experience, we could improve our understanding of most Bills through detailed scrutiny and questioning, and the tabling of new clauses and amendments that are intended to probe, rather than to overthrow the principles of the Bill in question. The House of Lords is very insistent on maintaining intervals of a few days between each stage of primary legislation; that is an example that we in this House might profitably seek to emulate.
	I note that the programme motion not only provides for Committee and all subsequent proceedings to be taken in a single day, but makes no guarantee that those proceedings will not be strictly timetabled so that they take less than an entire parliamentary day. The Government perhaps need to reconsider that point. I hope that there will be further reflection on that subject before we get to the subsequent stages of the Bill.
	As the Minister said in her opening speech, we are debating the application in domestic law of two protocols in international law. The additional protocol was adopted by parties to the Geneva convention as long ago as 2005. That is true, too, of the optional protocol to the UN convention on the protection of United Nations and associated personnel, which was adopted by the General Assembly in December of that year. It is slightly odd that we should have had to wait from the end of 2005 until the spring of 2009 for the Government to decide finally to bring forward the legislation to give effect to their decision to sign and ratify those important pieces of international legislation.
	I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate she will elucidate the distinction between the two conventions, which intrigues me. When we talk about the red crystal, we are talking about the ratification of the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions, whereas in the case of the amendment to the United Nations convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel, we are talking about the ratification of an optional protocol to the original convention of 1994. I am no lawyer, let alone an international lawyer, and I am genuinely intrigued to hear whether the Minister can elucidate the distinction between an additional protocol and an optional protocol. That is not an academic inquiry. We need to be clear in our minds, when we enact the legislation, about whether the difference in title means that there is a difference in the legal effect of the two parts of legislative reform in the Bill.

Greg Knight: I wonder whether my hon. Friend could help the House. Who will decide whether the cross or the crystal is used? Will the Foreign Office have a list of sensitive souls who may be offended by the cross, and will it advise aid workers on when to use the crystal, or will someone on the field of battle make that decision? Does he know the answer to that? The Bill does not make it clear.

David Lidington: No. That is a point that I want to come on to in a little while. My right hon. Friend asks a serious question. My understandingI am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am mistakenis that in respect of British servicemen and women participating in a humanitarian enterprise conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and falling within the scope of the optional protocol, it would be for the British authorities, or the appropriate commander, to decide what symbol was used. On the general use of emblems more widely than in United Nations humanitarian and other operations, I assume that the decision would be taken by the national society concerned, as it is now. In our case, that is the British Red Cross. It will be for the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies of various countries to decide the symbol, or combination of symbols, that they wish to employ.

Bill Wiggin: rose

Mr. Speaker: I call Jerry Wiggin.

Bill Wiggin: It is Bill, Mr. Speaker, but that is perfectly all right. My father would love to have been called. He longs to be back here, but it seems a prudent family decision that there should be one Wiggin in the House at a time. Thank you anyway, Mr. Speaker.
	Does my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) agree with me that the Bill is not about deciding which symbola red cross, crescent or crystalis used, but about making sure that legislation is in place to prosecute people who ignore that symbol? The Bill is about prosecuting people in the UK; that is why it applies to our Government. It therefore matters very much who decides whether our troops open fire on somebody displaying a diamond shape. Does he feel that the measure will really help British troops in their peace-making efforts, or could it simply add to the confusion in the heat of battle, thus putting British servicemen in the dock for trying to do the right thing, which they usually do?

David Lidington: There are two elements to my response to my hon. Friend's question. As I understand the Bill, the provision will permit the use of the red crystal alongside or in place of the red cross and red crescent, and will therefore provide an additional symbol that will attract international protection and the respect for that protective function by means of criminal sanctions for those who breach it and for those who, in the terms of the original convention, make perfidious use of itin other words, those who use the protective symbol when they are engaged in military or terrorist operations.
	The Bill also provides protection in British domestic law against the use of the red crystal symbol for any purpose other than to designate a genuinely protective humanitarian bodyin our case, the British Red Cross. So, as I understand it, the legislation would outlaw the use of the red crystal for any kind of business or commercial purpose. Again, if I am mistaken, I am sure the Minister will intervene or address the point in her concluding remarks.
	My understanding is that the additional protocol concerning the red crystal has taken a great many years to negotiate and that there have been many false starts. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will be able to spell out in a little more detail exactly how the additional protocol will finally allow the vexed issue of the red star of David or red shield of DavidI have seen both terms usedto be treated in future.
	My understanding is that, under the additional protocol, the red star of David will not be treated as on a par with the red cross, crescent or crystal, in that its display will not automatically invoke the right to protection which those other symbols guarantee, but that it will be open to Israeli and, if they so choose, other humanitarian organisations to use the red star of David as an additional indicative symbol of their humanitarian purpose, so that, for example, an Israeli ambulance or relief lorry might travel into an area where there might be a threat of violence displaying the red star of David on the side of the vehicle, but with the crystal clearly displayed on the roof of the vehicle as a signal to aircraft that it was entitled to international protection. That is my understanding, having read the briefing on the Bill, but if the Minister wishes to correct me, I am happy to let her do so.

Bill Wiggin: I am curious about what sort of threat might come from the air to the Israelis, in particular.

David Lidington: In any humanitarian operation, relief workers or troops escorting them are right to be alert to the prospect of attack from any direction, including from aircraft. If my hon. Friend looks into this, I think he will find that there have been occasions where there has been so-called friendly fire, where humanitarian vehicles have been attacked, deliberately or inadvertently, from the air. Clearly, the purpose of displaying the humanitarian symbols prominently is to deter and prevent any such attack.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is making the point beautifully. That is why I turned up this afternoon. If the air power in question is Israeli, which it will be, because there is no air force presenting any sort of threat to an Israeli humanitarian effort, surely the right sort of symbols will be the ones that are most familiar to Israeli pilots. That is true throughout the world. We all know why the red cross is so important. If we were combatants of any sort, we would want to be protected if we were injured. We need to make sure that the sort of people who would ignore that do not take part in such conflicts. Therefore putting a diamond shape on the roof of an Israeli truck to prevent Israelis from blowing up their own truck is unnecessary. They could stick with any sort of Israeli symbol for the red cross, whether it was a star of David, a red crescent or any other symbol. The provision is entirely unnecessary in that example.

David Lidington: A new symbol, agreement on which has allowed the vexed question of the position of the Israeli and Palestinian humanitarian relief societies to be settled, and allowed them to become part of the global family of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, is a compromise worth having.
	Although my hon. Friend is tempting me into my other responsibilities as middle east spokesman, I will not go down that track too far, but I shall respond to the point that he made. If I can look forward to the future of the middle east with greater optimism than he was able to voice in his question, perhaps we could see a day when Israeli vehicles participated in UN multinational humanitarian operations. If the legal framework that we have provided for in the protocol and now in the Bill makes it possible for that to happen, that is a constructive step.
	I have two other questions to the Minister about the use of the red crystal

Christopher Chope: Before my hon. Friend moves on to that point, can he give me some assurance that the red shield of David, which was specifically outlawed following the 1949 diplomatic conference, will not be brought back into the equation?

David Lidington: It is for the Minister to give a detailed response to my hon. Friend's question. My understanding is that it will be possible to use the red shield as an indicative symbol, but that it would not have the status of a protective symbol. It would have to be used alongside the red crystal, which would have to have the greater prominence, particularly on the roofs of buildings or vehicles, in order to make sure that that protected status was understood.

Christopher Chope: In that case, does my hon. Friend share my concern that the provision is an unnecessary complication? We are talking about introducing a third symbol, the crystal, but he seems to be saying that notwithstanding that, the Israelis and other countries will carry on using other symbols as well.

David Lidington: That is a complication, but it is a necessary one. The more I delve into the politics of the middle east, the more I find the need for unavoidable complications. One's wish that the world were simpler is very often defeated when looking at that region.
	My second question to the Minister about the red crystal concerns its relationship with the red cross and the red crescent. I heard her say that the intention was that the crystal should not displace those traditional symbols, and I know, too, that in terms of indicative domestic use it will be a matter not for the Government, but for the British Red Cross to decide how to use the symbols in this country. However, I want to put on the record my strong hope that it will not use the opportunity provided by the inclusion of the red crystal in the list of protective symbols to go down the route of saying, Let's have that instead of the red cross.
	The British Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross do a first class job. However, the one thing that I find niggling about the British Red Cross from time to time is its neuralgia about even the slightest reference to religionright down to banning Christmas cribs from the windows of its charity shops. That is unnecessary; I do not think for a moment that such displays bring its impartiality into question. I hope that it will stick to a tried and trusted symbol that the overwhelming majority of the British public respect and value, regardless of their ethnic and religious traditions. The symbol is also regarded with great pride by the army of volunteers and fundraisers who have participated in the work of the British Red Cross for so many years.
	My final comment about this element of the Bill takes me to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about the Human Rights Act 1998. As I understand it, the Bill prohibits the use of the red crystal for any business or commercial purpose. I would like an assurance from the Government that they truly did their homework on that issue before bringing the Bill to the House. Can the Minister say in terms that the Government have checked that they will not be knowingly extinguishing the patent rights of any individual or company, and that the Bill will not suddenly cripple the trade of some small business that has been innocently using the red crystal as a marketing device or a symbol of its corporate image for many years, only to find itself overtaken by this legislation?
	Clause 2 deals with the optional protocol to the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel. In terms of British law, we are talking about an amendment of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997. The amendment is designed to address the fact that the protection given by the current convention is fairly narrow. However, articles 1 and 2 of the original convention show that the definition of a United Nations operation is tightly drafted. To qualify for the protection of personnel, the operation has to be
	for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security; or...Where the Security Council or the General Assembly has declared, for the purposes of this Convention, that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation.
	Clearly, that phraseology rules United Nations humanitarian assistance and relief operations outwith the scope of the original convention. Although it could be argued that there is a safeguard in the reference to the power that the Security Council and General Assembly have to declare that there is an exceptional risk to the personnel participating in the operation, I believe that there have been only about four occasions since the convention came into force when that saving clause has been applied in practice.
	Everyone is clear and agrees that there are plenty of United Nations operations that do not qualify for protection but ought to. I gladly join the tribute paid by the Minister to the courage of military personnel and civilian workers who work under the United Nations banner in the most difficult circumstances, trying to bring aid and humanitarian relief to people in desperate straits and often in the midst of the most savage conflicts in different parts of the world.
	The Bill is extraterritorial in scope; it creates offences in the United Kingdom in respect of offences committed elsewhere in the world. Section 1 of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 defines the offences as ones committed outside the United Kingdom. One detail that troubles me is that the Bill does not seek to amend the list of criminal offences included in sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Act. I am sure that the Minister knows only too well that since 1997 there has been a long series of criminal justice Acts. We have seen the creation of a long list of new offences and the redefinition of others. I am therefore genuinely puzzled about why the Bill does not seek to amend the list of offences in sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Act, to bring that Act up to date. New terrorism offences have been created and I would have thought that they would apply to the Bill, especially as the terrorism legislation brought in by the Government specifically includes offences committed overseas and not just those committed here. Why has there been no amendment to the original list of offences in the 1997 legislation?
	My second area of questioning is about the definition of United Nations operations. The Bill amends the definition of a UN operation to add in the category of
	delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding and delivering...humanitarian assistance.
	We deserve more detail from the Government about what is meant by peacebuilding. The original UN convention carefully defines peacekeeping operations. There was much argument and debate among the members of the United Nations before agreement was reached on the precise wording of the optional protocol. It would help us to understand the reference to peacebuilding if the Minister filled us in later about what happened during those negotiations and about what the member states of the UN had in mind collectively when they agreed on the use of that term.
	Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reasoning for the opt-out that is explicitly included in clause 2(4) in respect of operations to deliver emergency humanitarian assistance in response to natural disaster. I know that the Government have simply imported it; it is an opt-out that is included in the text of the optional protocol. What are the reasons for that opt-out? I simply cannot understand why any country in any part of the world should think it necessary to disapply the protection of international law from people who are working on behalf of the UN to deliver emergency humanitarian assistance following an earthquake or some other natural disaster.
	We had a fairly recent case of that; as I understand it, one reason that people became so dissatisfied with the tight definitions of the convention was that it failed to offer protection to the relief workers who supplied food, medicines and emergency accommodation to the victims of the Boxing day tsunami a few years ago. The optional protocol and the Bill that implements it would appear to provide an opt-out that any country could exercise, applied to its territory, when people were sent in to respond to just such an emergency. I do not understand the logic of any country's seeking to have such an opt-out.
	It seems to me that there are still some problems with the definition of UN operations, because, even with the additions proposed in the Bill, they basically remain the same as those set out in articles 1 and 2 of the convention. Let me give a few illustrations of those outstanding problems. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of the New Zealand Parliament, which investigated the optional protocol, pointed out that the original convention
	only covers United Nations operations, and
	this seems to me to be the important point
	excludes regional peacekeeping operations or peacekeeping operations authorised by the Security Council to be conducted under national or regional command and control.
	That is a significant lacuna in the optional protocol and therefore, presumably, in the scope of the Bill.
	We are now in a world where the UN in Sudan is seeking to work in concert with regional organisations. In the future, the UN might wish to work together with or to give authority to the African Union or other regional bodies to co-ordinate and lead both peacebuilding and humanitarian operations in particular parts of the world. If the concerns expressed by the New Zealand Parliament are correct, we have a gap in the protection we are offering to the people involved in such operations. That might be the product of a diplomatic compromise that was necessary to obtain agreement on the protocol, but I would be grateful for some further information on that point, especially given that the New Zealand Parliament concludes:
	The majority of casualties continue to be among personnel serving in operations not covered by the automatic application of the Convention.
	Another criticism was made by the international lawyer, Mr. Huw Llewellyn, who is quoted at length in the helpful research paper provided by the House of Commons Library. He said in an article published in  International and Comparative Law Quarterly in July 2006:
	Emergency humanitarian assistance operations established by autonomous organizations within the UN system and by the Specialised Agencies do not fall within Article II(1)(b)
	of the optional protocol because
	They are not established by UN Charter bodies
	and the protocol makes specific reference to the charter. Mr. Llewellyn also pointed out:
	for example, operations established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), or by the World Health Organization (WHO) would not be within the scope of the Protocol.
	So those organisations would not be within the scope of the Bill, either.

Greg Knight: Surely my hon. Friend is highlighting a very good reason why the remaining stages of the Bill should be continued on another day so that he can table amendments to deal with that very issue.

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend makes the good point that those are precisely the sort of issues that we ought to be able to explore with probing amendments and proper time allowed for debate and detailed ministerial response point by point, rather than today's debate being truncated by the use of a guillotine.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend think that the problems he has highlighted in those examples arise from a drafting error on the part of someone who has not thought the issue through or does he think they convey the true intention behind the legislation?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend asks a perfectly serious question. I do not know the answer. I suspect that it is not a drafting error, because it seems to me that the Bill closely reflects the words of the protocol. I would expect that the gaps in the protection are the product of the diplomatic wrangling that was needed to get the UN General Assembly to agree to the optional protocol. It is worth further exploring that point, but of course I understand the diplomatic dilemmas that our Government might have faced in deciding that they had to settle for half a loaf when they might have wanted something rather more ambitious.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that however laudable it is to accept half a loaf rather than no loaf, it waters down and hampers the general intention behind the legislation?

David Lidington: That is certainly the case. My hon. Friend and I have learned from our years in this place that one sometimes has to settle for half a loaf or even less and that one advances little by little towards the state of affairs that one hopes to achieve.
	My final set of questions about this element of the Bill concerns the practical impact that it might have on existing UN operations. I am clear in my mind that the Bill is binding on British domestic law in respect of offences committed against UN and associated personnel overseas provided that those operations come within the scope of the original convention or the optional protocol. I am not altogether clear about which current UN operations would be covered by the Bill. Some UN operations are extremely controversial and could give rise to some tricky issues of litigation here.
	We all watched with horror some of the events in Gaza in recent months. When, a couple of weeks ago, I met Mr. John Ging, the head of the United Nations operation in Gaza, he told me about shelling that had damaged his headquarters building in the Gaza strip. He also told me about military operations in the near vicinity of schools, or attacks on schools, run by the United Nations. I am deliberately trying to keep my language as neutral as possible because there are conflicting accounts of what happened, who was responsible and whether those actions were deliberate or inadvertent, or were in response to attacks on troops.
	The basic point is that the Bill creates new offences in British domestic law in respect of attacks on UN and associated personnel operating overseas. If Gaza, to take the most obvious recent high-profile example, is covered by the scope of the additional protocol and the Bill, it surely follows that allegations could be made in the United Kingdom against individual Israeli political or military leaders. I note that the Bill provides a safeguard in that the Attorney-General must give permission for a prosecution to take place. However, one can well imagine that it would be an extremely controversial decision either to initiate or to deny such a prosecution given how the Bill represents and embodies our commitment to the United Nations and to the duty to protect all its personnel.

Christopher Chope: What troubles me about my hon. Friend's comments is that they might be interpreted as suggesting that it is more dastardly to kill children who are in a United Nations-sponsored school than in any other school. Surely he is not suggesting that.

David Lidington: No, I am not. The Bill gives particular protection to United Nations and associated personnel; other civilians are covered by the duties of protection that are guaranteed under more general international law, with which my hon. Friend is familiar. The Geneva conventions and the other forms of humanitarian protection that have been agreed between nations continue to apply. The Bill and the convention protocol on which it is based give additional protection to UN personnel in recognition of the particular duties that they carry out on our behalf.

Rob Marris: Would not those protections extend to dissuading Israeli defence forces from murdering UK citizens who are part of a UN peacekeeping force in that part of the world, just as, for example, Israeli defence forces murdered the UK citizen Tom Hurndall?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully, and the Minister and Members will have heard what he says.
	It is disappointing that more than 10 years after the convention was adopted, fewer than half the member states of the United Nations have signed up to it. Does the Minister have reason to believe that the addition of the optional protocol will encourage more states to become parties both to the original convention and to the protocol? That would be encouraging. I hope that she can also clarify whether the offences created in the Bill exist only in respect of acts committed on the territory of a country that is a party to the protocol and to the convention, or whether those offences are more strictly defined so that if an attack that qualified under the Bill as a criminal offence took place on UN personnel in any country of the world, the individuals responsible could be brought to justice here. That is an important point that we need to understand not only in appreciating the virtues of the Bill but in judging its practical efficacy in the immediate future.
	I am sorry to have detained the Minister for so long with detailed questions, but I wanted to take this opportunity to probe some of the details of the Bill, which, after all, creates new criminal offences that are binding on all our citizens. However, I strongly support the principle of the Bill, and I will support it if we vote on it.

Jo Swinson: I should like to add the Liberal Democrats' support for the Bill. I am pleased that the cross-party consensus seems to be that it is the right way for the Government to go. I do not think that I need detain the House for three quarters of an hour in order to put my views across and ask a few questions that I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with in her summing up.
	I echo the commendation that the Minister and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) gave to the British Red Cross for the service it has provided in the 100-plus years of its operations. It is wonderful to see such an institution with such a long and successful historythe International Committee of the Red Cross has an even longer history of nearly 150 yearsdoing incredibly important work. The need to protect medical workers and respect the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies wherever it is operating is absolutely universal, and I am sure that nobody would disagree with the requirement to do so.
	One learns something new every day, as the adage goes, and I certainly did so when I read the  Hansard report of the debate in the Lords, which the Minister outlined. I was surprised to learn that the origin of the red cross was a reversal of the Swiss flag as a symbol of the neutrality of Switzerland. It must be recalled that despite it being called the red cross, it is not a religious symbolalthough, sadly, it has been taken to mean that in some circumstances. The difficulties that have arisen with the red cross and the red crescent being perceived as symbols that are not neutral have led to the need to adopt a new symbol. The adoption of the red crystal is a sensible way forward in such sensitive areas, although it is sad that that choice may have to be made.
	I welcome the Minister's confirmation that the Foreign Office's default optionI hope the same applies to the British Red Crosswill be to continue to use the red cross, which is most familiar in this country in terms of brand recognition. There must, however, be flexibility so that a crystal can be used too, ensuring that it is entirely clear that the medical aid is neutral.

Simon Burns: In what circumstances does the hon. Lady envisage the red crystal being used instead of the red cross?

Jo Swinson: I understand that it has already been used in several war zones where it was felt that the red cross or the red crescent might be perceived as religious symbols rather than neutral medical symbols. Although that might be regrettable, it is sensible that we ensure that an alternative symbol can be used. There has been discussion about who should make that decision, and the Minister has already stated that the default would be the Red Cross, but that decision has to be made by those on the ground who are able properly to assess the situation and any sensitivities.
	Clause 2 calls for additional protection for those who do vital and dangerous work. We should salute those who courageously do an incredibly difficult job in providing a service to us and to the whole international community. Legal protection for UN personnel on peacebuilding and emergency humanitarian work is long overdue. Unfortunately, with the deliberate targeting of humanitarian and UN personnel in recent conflicts, it is more needed than ever.
	I should like the Minister to clarify a point that was made today, and in the other place. My noble Friend Baroness Northover asked whether missions of sister organisationsthe World Health Organisation or the Food and Agriculture Organisationin conflict areas would be included. The Minister's summing up in the other place suggests that any UN agency would be included and that any agency undertaking work with the UN under that umbrella would be included, but that humanitarian agencies would not. The hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that the WHO and FAO would not be included, so clarity from the Minister would be helpful.

Hugo Swire: I agree with a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she think that, historically, sufficient sanctions have been taken against those who have abused the Red Crossor, most recently, those who abused the United Nations Works and Relief Agency in Gaza? What does she think can be done to beef up that process beyond what is in the Bill?

Jo Swinson: I would certainly agree that sanctions have not been effective enough. Indeed, I was just about to say that it is all very well passing a Bill, but if the protection is available but is not used we are providing words rather than action. It is important that legislation is available and provides a first step, but the international community needs the political will to act against breaches. In the recent events in Gaza, the UN gave all the co-ordinates of its facilities to the Israeli authorities, but it still ended up being bombed, and that clearly requires an international investigation.
	The difficulty with organisations such as the UN is whether independent investigations will be subject to a veto. Where there is evidence that war crimes might have occurred, I strongly feel that they should be investigated and people held to account, regardless of what country they are from or, indeed, in what country the offences were committed. Legal protection does not solve the problem, but having it on the statute book helps to provide a deterrent and gives us the tools to pursue justice. However, there must be the political will to pursue that justice.

Christopher Chope: If a deterrent is to be effective, surely there has to be an effective sanction against non-compliance. Are we not in danger of engaging again in gesture politics, where the substance does not follow what we are saying?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman will know that getting agreement in international organisations is not easyit is an art rather than a science. I hope that our passing this Bill will send a message to other countries and encourage them to ratify the protocols, but that does not automatically mean that international organisations will work as perfectly as we want. However, that is not an argument for not giving the Bill a Second Reading, or for the Government not to propose legislation. If the Government are encouraging other countries to sign and to ratify the protocols and the initial convention, as I hope they are, their task will be made a bit difficult if they have not ratified them.
	When we talk about the protection of UN personnel under the Bill, we are talking about UN personnel in the UK, where we hope there would never be the sort of problems to which the Bill applies. The message that this Parliament sends will give us the basis on which we can, through our diplomatic efforts, encourage other countries to sign and ratify. I hope that the Minister will update the House on the current situation; I understand that 87 countries ratified the original convention, but that 34 had signed and 16 had ratified the protocols. Those were the figures given in the other place in January. Two months on, it would be interesting to know whether the figures have increased, the number of ratifications needed for the protocols to come into force and how far away we are from that.
	The Minister said that the Government signed the protocol in 2005, yet four years later we are finally scrutinising the legislation. It is not exactly the weightiest measure for which the Government have needed to find parliamentary time, so I find it difficult to understand why it has taken so long. Given that the red crystal has been in use since 2007, it would be helpful if the House had put things in order beforehand. I should like the Minister to outline the difficulties.
	Lord Malloch-Brown wrote a letter to my noble Friend, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in which he seemed to suggest that even when states had failed, international courts might be able to uphold this law. I wanted to press the Minister on how that could be the case if the states in question had not ratified the protocols. Clearly, some of the states we most want to ratify the protocols are those for which the issue might not be top of the agenda. Any information on the Government's efforts to encourage them would be welcome.
	Finally, much as I welcome additional legal protection for UN personnel, we need to remember non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam, Mdecins sans Frontires, Save the Children and so on. Other humanitarian agencies are delivering aid and relief efforts but will not be protected. A lot of those organisations work in conflict zones where even the UN has pulled out, deeming it too dangerous to work. I hope that the Government will pursue legal protection for aid workers who work in a neutral capacity, providing humanitarian assistance and not getting involved in the politics of individual countries. On 11 March, three staff were kidnapped from Mdecins sans Frontires in Darfur, and I am sure that the whole House hopes they will be safely returned. Attacks against humanitarian workers can never be justified, but we should be concerned that our valued international institutions are sometimes regarded with hostility. It is incumbent on all of us, particularly the Government, to do everything possible to uphold the United Nations and its partners as just and non-partisan.
	I hope that the Minister will address my points, and I am delighted to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Charles Walker: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to be here today, supporting the Red Cross. Let us remember that the Red Cross wants the new international sign of the red crystal to protect its operatives in the field. It is wonderful to reflect at this time of huge global tension that the Red Cross operates to the highest ideals possible. We live in times when we have to be religiously sensitiveand when the cross and the crescent can unintentionally ignite religious passionsbut the Red Cross is free of any ideology. When people are in need, it does not question who they are, their reasons for being on a battlefield, or their reasons for being in that locationit offers help at the direst time of need and emergency.
	We live in dark and dangerous times. The Red Cross was founded nearly 140 years ago, but the need for the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the derivatives of those organisations is greater than ever before. We have a number of global conflicts, in places such as the Congo, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. There are numerous flashpoints in the middle east, where aid is needed daily. We also have the spectre of global climatic events impacting on people living near sea shores. A few years ago the tsunami laid waste to large parts of Asia. Again, the Red Cross was at the forefront of delivering aid. The need is greater than ever, and if the Red Cross believes that it needs a new global symbol to protect its people in the field, it should have our full support. I am pleased that there seems to be a consensus about that today, as there was in the other place.
	We must examine the Bill carefully to ensure that it is as good as it can be. I have one concern, which I think many Members will share. The red crystal will come into force, and I imagine that our troops whom we send to far-flung parts of the world will understand exactly what it means very early on. They will be educated to recognise it. But will people in the Congo, for example, understand what the red crystal is? We will be dealing with youngsters who have had no formal education at all, as they have been denied it. They are taken from their homes, conscripted into youth armies and brutalised. What will the red crystal mean to them? Will it offer any protection to those who fly the flag? Terrible events are also unfolding in Swat valley in Pakistan.

Greg Knight: Surely in the scenario that my hon. Friend paints, another symbol would be used. Does he not think that the Foreign Office would have a list of countries where it is most appropriate to use a different symbol, and that the UN would be guided accordingly?

Charles Walker: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and that is why Parliament has such an important role to play through the Bill. When concerns are raised, parliamentarians turn their attention to addressing them, and I hope that the most appropriate symbol will be used. We have a duty to ensure that the brave men and women who go into dangerous places get the maximum possible protection. That is an absolute, and we must never shy away from trying to ensure it.

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely right about the proliferation around the world of events at which the Red Cross or its derivatives are needed. Does he share a corresponding concern about the abuse of the symbols in the countries where those events are taking place? I understand that under the existing 1957 legislation, unauthorised use of the emblem is punishable by a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently 5,000. I do not know whether he knows how many times that has been enforced, but does he regard that as a sufficient penalty?

Charles Walker: The penalty sounds very small and out of date, but as my hon. Friend will know, we can have all the penalties in the world, but if they cannot be enforced they amount to absolutely nothing. In response to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), I point out that there are too many parts of the world where the Red Cross and the Red Crescent are abused, and where people no longer respect the mission of those brave organisations. Like many other Members, I have read the Library briefing and watched the news. Unfortunately, brave men and women working tirelessly for the benefit of others under the flag of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent are losing their lives.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) will know, as he is a former soldier, that the battlefield is a dangerous place to be. We see that week in and week out, when we hear of journalists and other non-combatants being killed. Deliberate attacks on people flying an international symbol of aid and help must no longer be tolerated. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), touched on the fact that when people working for the Red Cross come under deliberate attack, there must be global indignation and those responsible must feel the full weight of global law fall upon their shoulders.

John Hayes: I am sorry that I was not here at the outset of the debate, but I have thus far followed it with interest from a distance, and I have read all the materials provided. My hon. Friend talks about indignation, but that must find its form in the appropriate reaction of Government. If they do not take a lead on these things, he is fanciful in expecting others to do so in their place. The Government must take a lead, and there is not much evidence that they are.

Charles Walker: I shall be more charitable than my hon. Friend to the Government, because I think that there is a desire and a mood in all parties to provide the necessary protection to men and women operating in the field under the red cross and the red crescent. However, my hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Today, we have the G20, and 66 per cent. of the world's population is represented by the global leaders who are in London. The economy is absolutely critical and deserves their attention, but they should also focus on how to alleviate the suffering of the hundreds of millions of people who are living in war-torn parts of the world. I mentioned the Congo earlier, and it is outrageous that more than 6 million people have been allowed to perish there. How many more would there have been without the Red Cross?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman relating his remarks and concerns to the Bill, and I hope that he will continue to do that.

Charles Walker: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	How many more would have perished without the Red Cross, and how many more would be suffering? The organisations, guerrilla groups and people who wilfully attack the Red Cross must be brought before a court of international law and tried. If convicted, they must serve time in prison for their crimes against not just the Red Cross but humanity.
	I conclude my short speech by paying tribute to those who work for the Red Cross and Red Crescent. They are ordinary men and women who do extraordinary things. We normally hear about them only when a tragedy occurs, but day in and day out they bring aid to parts of the world where there are unimaginable levels of suffering. We in this House need to do as much as possible to ensure that the Red Cross and its people can continue to deliver on their mission, and I am pleased that the Bill is before the House today and that we are supporting the Red Cross in its aims and objectives.

Bill Wiggin: May I say how nice it is to see how many colleagues are present who also served on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, including the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler), who unfortunately cannot speak for herself today?
	I begin by welcoming the tireless efforts of the humanitarian personnel who act selflessly to save lives and alleviate suffering. Humanitarian workers operate in the most hostile and dangerous parts of the world and show compassion and bravery that, along with the character of our armed forces, is unparalleled. We must of course do what we can to protect them and ensure that those who risk their lives are reassured of our support.
	However, emblems and conventions may not be enough. It saddens me that in recent years there have been many examples of humanitarian workers being harmed and killed, often in the most callous and brutal ways. I am concerned that those involved in the conflicts in which the UN and humanitarian personnel are engaged are already failing to respect the existing laws of war and morality. Whatever we legislate for in this Parliament, and across the world in other decent and democratic countries that respect the laws of war and the Geneva conventions, that does not mean that others will necessarily extend the same protection and respect. There are immoral people in conflict zones across the world who show utter disregard for the laws of war. They make no distinction between those acting in a humanitarian capacity and military personnel, who may be viewed as being legitimate targets.
	A number of high-profile examples have been brought to my attention that highlight the need for the international community, the United Nations and other international organisations to take action against those who refuse to be bound by the letter and the spirit of the conventions.
	In October, we were all horrified by the actions of the Taliban gunmen who brutally murdered three women aid workers, including one Briton, 40-year-old Jacqueline Kirk. The aid workers were ambushed by gunmen 30 miles outside Kabul in the province of Logar, while travelling from Gardez in the east of Afghanistan to Kabul. The gunmen ignored the laws of war and did not feel bound by conventions. Ms Kirk and her colleagues were working for the International Rescue Committee. They were not soldiers, part of the coalition of the willing or there to wipe out the Talibanthat is the job of our soldiers. Ms Kirk was there to support innocent civilians. She had no knowledge of warfare, but expertise in children's education programmes. The Taliban gunmen did not care. Their spokesman went as far as to claim that they attacked the vehicle in which Ms Kirk and her colleagues travelled because it was carrying military personnel, most of them women. He added to the Associated Press by phone:
	They were not working for the interests of Afghanistan and they belonged to those countries whose forces... took Afghanistan's freedom.
	Although the introduction of the red crystal symbol is welcome, I do not believe that the Taliban would show it any more respect than it has shown existing aid workers. It is not clear that the red crystal would have protected the five international aid workers who were kidnapped or held hostage in Afghanistan in the first half of 2008, or the dozens of Afghan aid staff working daily for non-governmental organisations.
	There are other examples of aid workers being brutally attacked and mistreated in conflicts. Sadly, the case involving Ms Kirk is not a one-off, but an all-too-regular occurrence. In 1996, three International Committee of the Red Cross relief workers were killed in Burundi, despite travelling in a vehicle that was clearly marked with the red cross emblem. Four ICRC staff were killed in south Sudan by the Sudan People's Liberation Army in 1999they were abducted in February and executed a few weeks later in April. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2001, two vehicles clearly marked with the red cross emblems were attacked, resulting in the deaths of six ICRC workers. The co-pilot of a Red Cross plane was killed after his plane was shot down in Sudan in 2001. Peace activist Ken Bigley was brutally beheaded in Iraq. In March 2007, a German aid worker was shot dead by gunmen in northern Afghanistan. In July 2007, two South Korean aid workers were shot dead. Suicide bombers in Iraq have attacked ICRC headquarters. In February, two aid workers for French organisation Aide Mdicale Internationale were ambushed and shot dead south of Darfur. Only last week, a 39-year-old Sudanese relief worker was shot by gunmen in Sudan, who were attempting to steal a satellite phone facility. In Sri Lanka, a CARE International humanitarian worker was killed in a no-fire zone in the Vanni area in the north.
	The Agency Co-ordinating Body for Afghan ReliefACBRhas reported that there was a 50 per cent. increase in insurgent attacks in 2008 compared with the previous year. Those actions and the contempt that some show towards humanitarian workers and the emblems under which they act undermine efforts to bring peace to areas of conflict.

Christopher Chope: The ghastly list that my hon. Friend has read out will cause everybody much concern, but to what extent have the perpetrators been prosecuted?

Bill Wiggin: I do not think that there have been any prosecutions. The Government's efforts in the legislation enable British people to be prosecuted, but not the perpetrators of the atrocities. Although it is right to have the legislation in place here, I emphasise that no one has been punished for the atrocities.

Hugo Swire: Let me repeat my earlier point. Although it is important that the international community comes down hard on those who ignore the symbolsincidences of that have unfortunately increased of lateit should also come down hard on those who misuse the symbols in times of war. Does my hon. Friend agree that existing provisions for fines and so on are woefully inadequate unless they are enforced, and also, as they stand, inadequate law?

Bill Wiggin: I agree with my hon. FriendI usually do; he is very wisebut, tragically, enforcement is not possible. Aid workers are needed and they go into those areas because there is lawlessness, no enforcement and humanitarian need. Food for the world exists; bad governance means that it does not get to the people who need it most.

Simon Burns: Is not it a sad fact of life that the legislation could include as harsh a punishment as one wanted, but many areas are so lawless and experience such a breakdown of law and order that, unless one catches the perpetrators of the atrocities, little can be done?

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right. However, all that should not stop members of the ICRC making the sacrifice, taking the risk and putting themselves in danger to deliver humanitarian aid because that is what they do, and we should support them. It is sad that whatever we say and do here is unlikely to have an impact. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear I am not.
	We must do what we can to ensure that vital aid and resources get to innocent civilians who need it. In Afghanistan, our aid workers and those who wear the respective red cross, red crescent and red crystal emblems would have their safety and the security in which to operate and carry on with their tremendous work strengthened if the Taliban were further weakened. That means that our military personnel must receive the right equipment to ensure that they can do their job to the best of their abilities. It also means that the many other countries that have an interest in peace and security in Afghanistan, including members of NATO and the EU, commit their fair share of military resources to that conflict zone. By improving the security situation on the ground for aid and humanitarian workers, we can reduce the dangers posed to them and the threats and brutal actions of those who show no regard for the emblems that we are debating today.
	When my constituents donate money to the Red Cross or to Oxfam, they expect their aid workers and the operations that they fund with their contributions to be protected. When our constituents decide to become aid workers, often as volunteers, while aware of the risks, they nevertheless expect that the purpose for their presence in conflict zones affords them some protection. People support aid agencies because they want to see them bring kindness and good to parts of the world where conflict has turned lives upside down and left innocent civiliansmen, women and childrenwith little or nothing.
	Whether in Palestine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia or Iraq the work that humanitarian workers and aid agencies undertake needs to be supported. I therefore press on the Under-Secretary the importance of taking the appropriate steps to ensure that those who disregard the laws of war and deliberately bring harm to aid workers are brought to justice and do not undermine the great efforts taken to support civilian populations.
	We also need to know from the Government that, aside from the introduction of the red crystal, more is being done to protect aid workers. How can we guarantee protection for our aid workers and humanitarian personnel when there are people in conflict areas prepared to disregard the rules of warfare, morality and decency? In lawless Somalia and large parts of Afghanistan, the conventions may carry little force or protection. Delivering further measures to protect humanitarian workers through the amendments to protocols and introducing a new emblem may look adequate on paper, but their true test will be seen in the conflict areas.
	The Geneva conventions and the protocols relating to UN personnel are not only designed to protect aid and humanitarian workers and civilians. The Geneva conventions were originally established to provide protection to wounded soldiers and military personnelto ensure that those who need help and medical aid are given it.
	My constituency is home to the finest soldiers anywhere in the world. Their record of achievement and their skills are unparalleled anywhere in the world. They are the bravest and they are the best. As with aid workers, however, when our soldiers are wounded in battle, there are those in some conflict areas who will not abide by international conventions. How confident can we be that our injured soldiers will be afforded the same rights, the same dignity and the same care by the enemy as those whom we capture are? When the Taliban or the insurgency in Iraq capture our soldiers, abiding by international law and those conventions does not appear to be at the forefront of their thoughts. The best way we can protect our military personnel in some conflict zones is not necessarily by relying on the enemy to observe international law, but by providing our personnel with the equipment and resources they need to protect themselves.
	Our efforts to promote international law and those conventions are, however, undermined by some of the actions in which this Government may have been involved. The Government's alleged complicity in acts of extraordinary rendition and the recent allegations made concerning torture are deeply worrying. We cannot go around lecturing others about international law and protecting civilians when there are questions that the Government may have to answer about not upholding such rules themselves. Such matters must be resolved to restore this country's credibility. The UK has a proud tradition of upholding and promoting international law. This Government must not be allowed to undermine it.

Adam Holloway: As I understand it, the Bill has two objectives: to amend the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and to amend the United Nations Personnel Act 1997. That is extremely relevant. Only a few weeks ago, I was with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) in Gaza, looking at, among other things, the enormous damage done to the UN compound in Gaza city and hearing about the deaths of about a dozen UN personnel during the recent conflict there. Also, as a television reporter at ITN, I spent considerable time in Bosnia, where I saw the importance of UN organisations operating effectively and saving many lives. I am therefore acutely aware of the need for both unambiguous markings and the protection of personnel.
	The first aim marks a new stage in the use of protective and distinctive emblems to cover the work of people who bring relief to the victims of battle, whether civilian or militarythe scenes are all too familiar on our television sets. The legislation does that by introducing and legalising the new additional emblem, which is intended to be both protective and indicative, being marked on vehicles and on the armbands and uniforms of personnel in the field. As we have discussed, the legislation also covers penalties for the misuse or abuse of the new symbol and, as I understand it, the existing symbols.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend share my slight concern that the new symbol could be mistaken for a military marking?

Adam Holloway: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which I shall come to a little later in my speech, but I absolutely agree. The first time that I saw the symbol, it took me back to the platoon commander's battle course at Warminster and the sort of markings that people might put on maps in an operations room, as well as the sort of markings used for directing military convoys. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point to which I shall return.
	The second aim is to strengthen the safety of the UN and associated personnel by extending their legal protection against attack in a wide range of operations. Both those aims are obviously thoroughly commendable and, as has been said, extremely relevant to the modern world. The bravery of those who work under those badges and emblems of neutrality and mercy is clear; they do a fantastic job. I strongly support the aims, but I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I hope that she can answer. The expansion of symbols from the simple red cross to the red crescent comes down to us from the 19th century, as she has said. We have also heard that at one point there was the red lion and sun for the Persians, and I think that there was even a red flame at one time for Thailand. All manner of religious and ethnic concerns have been reflected by such symbols.
	Let us remember, however, that the original red cross was never intended to be a religious symbol. As the Minister has said, it was simply the reversal of the Swiss flag, which is a white cross on a red background. The red cross became the emblem of that precious and nowadays abused concept of true neutrality. That was a long time ago, but this is where we are today. If the cross and the crescent have served us so well, I do not really see the reasoning for the new symbol.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend might be understating the risk. It is true that part of that risk lies in confusion of the type that he has described, which might arise. However, the history of the subject, which he will have looked at in some detail, shows that it has previously been suggested not simply that there should be one or two more symbols but, as he has implied, that there should be a multitude of symbols. Indeed, it has been suggested in debates on such matters since the 19th century that each nation might have its own symbol. That would lead to a disaster, whereby the universality that he has described would be lost for ever.

Adam Holloway: That is an interesting point. Indeed, my very next line is about whether the essential quality is in any way weakened or diluted by a third or more symbols.

Simon Burns: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he accept that if one were to have too many symbols, it would dilute recognition and understanding? To answer an earlier point, it may well be a problem for Jewish people from Israel to have a red crescent and, possibly, a red cross. It may also be a problem for Hindus in India to have a red crescent or a red cross. Surely the way forward is to have a third, all-embracing symbol for those cultures and peoples who find Christianity and Islam not acceptable, but not to dilute it by having regional, religious or ethnic variations, which could cause total incomprehension.

Adam Holloway: I am now concerned that the Whips Office is breaking into my hard drive, because the very next line of my speech is about the Israeli preference for the star of David. Now that the Israelis will be or have been admittedI am not sure whichinto the international federation, the idea seems to be that they can have the star of David with the crystal around it. If that is correct, I assume that that symbol would provide exactly the same protection under international law as the red crescent.
	Who exactly decides who can use the new symbol and where? Will the combination of emblems, such as the star of David and the crescent, be fully operative for indicative and protective purposes in all cases? How will the new emblem affect the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement? Will the crystal be included in any of their titles in future? Will there be a new international crystal organisation?
	How do we get the message out there that the symbol means what it means? There are two issues, the first of which is recognition. When I was with ITN in Bosnia, I remember that we had four white, armoured Land Rovers that said ITN unit on the side, but the word unit was bigger than ITN. I remember people in a village one day assuming that we were a military unit because the Land Rover had the word unit on the side, so whether or not people recognise the new symbol is not a trite point.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend has raised some interesting points, particularly about how we should educate people about the new symbol. We must not forget, however, that the Red Cross is in favour of the red crystal, as it believes that it will provide further protections to people operating in battlefields and war zones.

Adam Holloway: I thank my hon. Friend; I sincerely hope that that is the case. I think that everyone in the House wants this to work well. However, there is a possibility of misunderstanding, because the crystal shape is very similar to the markings on maps in operations rooms and to the symbols used on vehicles and in relation to military units. I wish that I had had time to look out some examples, so that I could describe these instances in more detail.
	Clause 2 deals with United Nations personnel. The provision obviously reflects the expansion of the UN's work in places such as Rwanda and Bosnia throughout the 1990s. The move to introduce a protocol gained added momentum in 2003 when Iraqi insurgents blew up the UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 20 people including the special envoy. The expansion of the automatic application of the convention to include peacekeeping operations and emergency humanitarian assistance is obviously very welcome, but will the Minister tell us whether any UN bodies will remain outside the scope of the provision? Emergency humanitarian assistance organisations established by organisations within the UN system and by specialist agencies do not seem to be covered, and I would like some clarification on that.

Hugo Swire: Other examples that my hon. Friend might cite are the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation. I understand that they would not be within the scope of the protocol.

Adam Holloway: Would they not? Forgive me; I could not establish that before the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for that.
	There is also some concern about the number of states that are signing up to the provisions, and perhaps the Minister will clarify that. I think that only 79 countries have signed up, out of the UN membership of 191, and that some of the countries in which the UN is operating have not signed upI understand that only four of the 16 countries in which UN personnel are operating have done so.
	Echoing the concern expressed by Lord Howe in another place, I want to ask whether the UN protocol will cover all bodies. Will it, for example, cover the refugee centre in Gaza that my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon and I visited recently? There have been comments about the scope of the previous personnel convention, and it has been suggested that it did not give the amount of cover that it needed to.
	How many states are party to the convention on the safety of UN personnel, and how many will be party to the enhancement and extension of it? Also, the new protocol now extends to UN personnel working in more clearly defined circumstances of exceptional risk. That problem has led to complaints by a number of people, including the former Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. Now that it will extend beyond the narrower concept of peacekeeping into humanitarian work, how many current operations will be included? There are many such operations in the world at the moment. All reasonable people will wish the measure well and hope that it will have positive effects in the darker corners of the world.

Greg Knight: I should like to start by thanking Mr. Speaker, who was in the Chair at the beginning of our proceedings when I raised a point of order. The main act, the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which we are seeking to amend today, was not available in the Vote Office and the Speaker indicated that he expected action to be taken in that respect. We now have proof of the power of the Chair, because the 1957 Act is now available. I am grateful to the Speaker for facilitating the availability of the original Act.
	It is sad, but perhaps an accurate indication of the slim chances of world peace, that we have heard today that the world cannot even agree a single symbol for humanitarian activity. The measure is important, and it raises a number of important questions, some of which my hon. Friends have already raised. Concern has been expressed, for example, about the lack of prosecutions. My concerns run in the other direction, however. I am worried that unnecessary and unreasonable prosecutions might take place if the Bill becomes law.
	If we see a white vehicle with a red cross on the side with the words Red Cross painted underneath, we know what that vehicle is. The words Red Cross are deeply embedded in the collective memory of the nation and, indeed, that of many nations. However, would we understand that a vehicle bearing the words Red Crystal represents the same organisation?
	It also occurs to me that commercial companies might already be using the name, and perhaps even a similar logo, although they have nothing to do with providing aid or humanitarian services. What will happen to those companies? Will they be prevented from trading as they are doing now? In the field of commercial law, there exists the term passing off. If a company sets up in business and seeks to emulate an existing, successful company, the new company can be prosecuted for trying to dupe customers into believing that it is the original, successful company. However, if a company using a similar name is operating in a completely different part of the world, and perhaps dealing with an entirely different product, it is often allowed to continue to do so. What would be the position in this case?
	The explanatory notes to the Bill are woefully inadequate. Indeed, the Bill itself does not make it clear what will happen. Page 2 of the explanatory notes refers to clause 1, the part of the Bill about which I am concerned. The notes state that
	unauthorised use of the emblem will be punishable by a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale.
	There are no words to suggest a limitation on the arena of use. The notes do not refer to a battlefield or war zone, for example; they simply refer to the unauthorised use of the emblem. The Bill itself refers not only to the emblem but to designs or wording. We can assume from that that the words Red Crystal could be banned from use by any organisation other than a wing of the Red Cross.
	I have suggested that commercial companies might already use the name Red Crystal and a similar logo. I decided to find out whether that was a fanciful view on my part, so, before the debate, I went on to the internet and typed in the words Red Crystal. Lo and behold, up came an advertisement for a display of ladies' gowns made by a company called J Style. The range of gowns shown was called Red Crystal. I also discovered that Clare Francis has written a book called Red Crystal, which is already on the bookshelves. Those products both use the two words that we are being invited to approve in the Bill today. We are also being invited to approve the imposition of a level 5 penalty on anyone using those words without authority. Will Clare Francis and her publishers have to remove all those books from the shelves, because the book happens to be called Red Crystal?

Hugo Swire: My right hon. Friend is talking about the words, as opposed to the emblem, but they largely amount to the same thing. According to the Library research paper, page 4 of the impact assessment for the Bill published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 26 November 2008 clearly states:
	There were no registered trademarks for goods or services which were the same as or confusingly similar to the red crystal emblem.

Greg Knight: Of course my hon. Friend, who is very experienced in the field of business, will know that not every business registers a trade name for a word or collection of words that they may use for a particular product or range of products. Quite clearly, the company called J Style has probably registered the words J Style as a trade name, but it is nevertheless currently selling a range of ladies' dresses called Red Crystal and has been doing so for some time. It seems to me that if it is to be prevented from doing thatmy hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) made this pointit should have registered the trade name. If it is to be prevented from selling that range by our changing the law, does he agree that there should at least be some provision for compensation and that there should be no question of that company being punished? It was using the name first, so the Minister needs to make it clear that people are not going to be prosecuted for doing something that is lawful today, that will be lawful tomorrow, but that will not be lawful from the day when she decides to invoke this Bill into law, if we pass it, as use of the words Red Crystal will be unauthorised.
	I have also discovered that there is apparently a group of musiciansI do not know whether it is a rock group or a pop groupwho call themselves Red Crystal.  [Interruption.] No, I am not a member of that group, but there is a band called Red Crystal and it has already released, I believe, a number of records. Will it be prevented from using that name in future?

John Hayes: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has given way, but I am surprised, given his encyclopaedic knowledge of such matters, that he knows nothing about the group Red Crystal. Having said that, he has made a serious point about universality. As I am sure that he will acknowledge, the point is that if we compromise universality, which lies at the heart of the principle of displaying a red cross or a red crescent, we will endanger lives.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend makes a very serious point at the end of his interventionyes, indeed.

Christopher Chope: Having regard to the previous short discussion, does my right hon. Friend accept my concern that what is described in the regulatory impact assessment as the small firms impact test is a wholly inadequate account of what issues are raised by the wording of the Bill and the use of the red crystal symbol?

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is woefully inadequate, and we need to hear some assurances from the Minister before we decide whether we can let this Bill go ahead.
	I asked the Minister in an intervention whether she would assure the House that there is no conflict with the European convention on human rights, as the effect of clause 1 is such, in my view, that it might be considered a control on the use of property within the meaning of article 1 of the first protocol of the ECHR. She said that she felt that it was fully compliant and that there was no problem in that respect, but in the light of the cases that I have indicated, where we have a book, a business and a group of musicians all using the name Red Crystalthis is just on the basis of page 1 of my search, as I did not have enough time to do any more research, so there may well be many other companies in the UK and outside it using the same wordsI want to know whether, if those bodies are operating in such a way that is quite clear that they are not seeking to pass themselves off as a division of the Red Cross and are not in any way involved in humanitarian aid, they will be allowed to continue to use those words either for a product range or as a trading name.

David Davis: My right hon. Friend has raised an incredibly important and perceptive point, as this could lead to the oppression of people who are just following their normal business. The problem is not just for this House, however, because this is an international agreement that will affect other countries. Surely the Minister should answer not only for this House and this country, but for the other parties to the agreement.

Greg Knight: As I expect from my right hon. Friend, that is a telling intervention, and I hope that when the Minister later answers the points that I have raisedshould the House give her leave to reply to the debate, which I hope that it willshe will also cover my right hon. Friend's particular point. It is important that those charged with maintaining authorised use of the logo and the words do not go over the top and seek to interfere with perfectly innocent commercial operations that may have been using the words for some considerable time.
	My other question to the Minister relates to the use of the new symbol. I asked her in an interventionnow that she has had a bit more time to think about it, perhaps she will reply in her summing upwho will decide where the new symbol is used and where the new phrase Red Crystal is implemented? Will it be the British Foreign Office, where British aid workers or British personnel are involved? If so, the Foreign Office will presumably keep a register of sensitive countries that do not like the Red Cross. Will that document be accessible to the public? Will we all be able to know which countries, should any conflict arise therein, will not have a detachment sent there called the Red Cross, but will accept the red crystal? Will that information be available to the public? As two of my hon. Friends have already asked, will there be a new international organisation calling itself red crystal that will actually be used in such situations?
	I hope that I have not sounded too much of a discordant note in this debate. There are very real concerns regarding the commercial sector, so I hope that the Minister can satisfy me when she answers the debate later. I hope to hear what she has to say later, but I should perhaps say out of courtesy that I am due to chair a Select Committee in about an hour's time, so I may miss some of the proceedings.

Hugo Swire: I do not intend to detain the House very long on what I think is a fairly uncontentious Bill. This is one of those debates in respect of which, as it is has progressed this afternoon, hon. Members have made points that warrant discussion in greater detail. Although I understand the history and evolution of the Red Cross brand, it is worth pausing to think, if only for a moment, whether we are on the way to diluting that brand, thus rendering it more ineffective than effective in so many of the countries in which it plays so critical a role. How long will it be, I wonder, before someone says that the Red Cross is no longer the appropriate term to cover UN aid agencies, given the fact that we have the Red Crescent, the red crystal and other organisations? Will we have to go through a rebranding exercise? I am sure that nobody would want that to happen, but some might argue that it is the next logical stage.
	I think it is worth pausingwith your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I do not want to depart too much from the meat of the Billto recognise the role that men and women under the umbrella organisations of the UN are playing in countries around the world. It is rather sobering to read what the noble Lord Malloch-Brown, a shadow Foreign Office Minister in the House of Lords, said.  [Interruption.] As the Minister has recognised, I made a Freudian slip in saying that he is a shadow Minister when he is of course the real thing. He said:
	One of the darkest clouds of my latter years at the UN was the severity and growing frequency of attacks on UN humanitarian workers.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2009; Vol. 707, c. 197.]
	That is, of course, regrettable and wholly unacceptable.
	The increase in the number of attacks is worth bearing in mind. In 1996, three ICRC relief workers in Burundi were killed while travelling in a vehicle clearly marked with Red Cross emblems. In 1999, four ICRC staff were killed by the Sudan People's Liberation Army in south Sudan. They had been abducted in February, and were executed in April. In 2001, six ICRC workers were killed in Ituri Province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo while travelling in two vehicles marked with Red Cross emblems. Also in 2001, a Red Cross plane was shot down in Sudan and the co-pilot was killed. In 2003, five ICRC staff were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq following the bombing of the ICRC's headquarters in Baghdad in a suicide attack. In 2007, a Red Crescent driver was seriously injured in an attack on a Somali Red Crescent pick-up truck clearly marked with the Red Crescent emblem.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those outrages, but I hope he will consider a question that seems to me to be at the heart of our discussion: whether the attacks were motivated specifically by the symbolism of the cross or crescent, or whether they would have happened regardless of the symbol. If the second is true, the adoption of a new symbol will not help one jot.

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend has made an extremely good point. I am not privy to information on why those convoys, individuals and headquarters were attacked, but they were clearly marked in a way that showed them to be part of the UN family, and I should have thought that anyone who attacked them would know that. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the idea that a red crescent, a red cross or a red crystal constitutes some form of armour protecting people from a would-be attacker is wishful thinking and, alas, an erroneous assumption.
	I can cite no better example than the bombing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency headquarters in Gaza, which my hon. Friend mentioned earlier, and which is now being subjected to international examination following the visit to Gaza of the head of the UN. AllegedlyI stress the word allegedlywhite phosphorus was used, in direct contravention of the laws of warfare. I do not know whether white phosphorus was used or not, but UN workers showed me where in the compound it had allegedly been used. I was told that it was white phosphorus and that it had definitely been used. I was also shown the burned out storage facility where medical supplies, in particular, were stored for the people of Gaza. What is worse, the Israeli defence forces knew exactly where that compound was. Of course they did. I had been there myself only the previous year, as had many other Members.
	Furthermore, UNRWA had provided the Israeli defence forces with the co-ordinates of that building when it first came under attack. There had been a remote triangular conversation between UNRWA, an Israeli general and Jerusalem, but that did not prevent a sustained attack on the compound, with accompanying damage to UN vehicles and properties which were clearly marked as such.
	The answer to my hon. Friend's question is no. It is not possible to say whether the emblem performed the role of litmus paper and attracted an incoming attack like a magnet, but it is certain that in that instance it provided no protection whatsoever.

Bill Wiggin: That suggests that had the marking been a crystal, it would not have made any difference at all.

Hugo Swire: No, it would not have made the slightest difference. I do not believe that even the most resilient crystal could resist the pressure of an incoming attack. I do not think a crystal affords any protection at all. I shall say something shortly about the punishment for those who misuse such emblems in war and those who abuse them by not recognising the international sanctity that should surely be afforded them.
	Perhaps I could have the Minister's attention for a moment. She might wish to hear what I am about to say. Under the heading Territorial Extent and Application, the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill state:
	The provisions of the Bill extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. As far as Scotland is concerned, the Bill relates only to reserved matters.
	I do not quite understand what that means. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the updating of the legislation should be a reserved matter.
	The explanatory notes continue:
	Under clause 3, there is power to extend the provisions to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and British overseas territories.
	Do the Government intend to extend that power, and if so, when? Would it not be logical to do everything at the same time?
	Let me turn briefly to an issue on which I have been intervening this afternoon: the issue of punishment for abusing those labouring under the protection of the UN, in whatever guise, and for misusing the emblems in a time of warfare. We have discussed what punishments are available. According to the research paper I have here:
	Clause 1 of the current Bill and its Schedule would add the red crystal to the list of emblems protected by the 1957 Act.
	That is good. It continues:
	A grave breach of the Protocol (perfidious use of the emblem for the purpose of killing injuring or capturing an adversary during an international armed conflict) would be punishable by up to 30 years' imprisonment (or, if the offence involved murder, life imprisonment).
	I wonder whether the Minister can cite, under the existing legislationI thought she might be rising to give me an answer, but no such lucka single example of a grave breach of the protocol being punished either with 30 years' imprisonment or by life imprisonment. Assuredly there have been such grave breaches, and they continue to take place.
	The paper continues:
	Unauthorised use of the emblem will be punishable by a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale (currently 5,000) and the court may order the forfeiture of any goods or articles upon or in connection with which the emblems or designs were used.
	I do not think the courts will do much in some backward valley in Afghanistan if someone is driving around with a red crescent, or even a red crystal, painted on a pick-up truck, but here we have a wonderful international legal framework to punish those who abuse the UN, either by misusing its symbols or by attacking those who are protected under them.

Greg Knight: Clause 1(5) refers to a design or wording. I mentioned that when I spoke earlier.

Hugo Swire: Indeed, and my right hon. Friend made an extremely good point. His quick trawl on the internet produced, straight away, two examples of companies which I think would be adversely affected by the introduction of the red crystal. It is stated somewhere in the Bill that it would have no financial implicationsa standard statement in Billsbut it could clearly have adverse financial implications for those two companies, and perhaps for many others, including the rock group cited by my right hon. Friend. I think that the Minister needs to drill down into this issue, and come up with some answers.
	This afternoon, we have heard the history of the proliferation of emblems and about the countries that wanted to adopt symbols over the yearsthose that tried and then dropped the idea. It is regrettable, although understandable, that we have embarked on this journey in that it involves diluting the brand of the Red Cross. We have to live with it, and I of all people understand the sensibilities of those countries to which a cross is in some way offensive or not necessarily representative. It is regrettable but of course it is understandable.
	We spend a lot of time lauding the incredibly important work that aid workers and non-governmental organisations do around the world, often with little protection. What is most important at this point is that, rather than making gestures in order to accommodate the arrival of a new sub-branch, if you like, of the UN, we spend a little time remembering that a lot of the protection offered to UN agencies under international law is simply not available to a range of other organisations staffed with very brave men and women throughout the world. They have no protection under international law or certainly not to the same degree as the UN. However, a law is only as good as its enforceability or the proven protection that it provides, so we owe it to all those working under the family of the UNbe they working for the Red Cross or the Red Crescent, or for the red crystal in futureto ensure that if they are in any way abused in warfare, the perpetrators of that abuse will be brought to the highest courts of the land, perhaps the International Criminal Court in The Hague or somewhere else appropriate; or that a fine, if a fine it is to be, is imposed and seen to be imposed, so that these symbols, regardless of how many there are, mean the same thing to people throughout the world.

John Hayes: This debate is about symbols, protocol and convention. In the end, it is about the meaning of all those things. Much of the work of a politician is in discerning the difference between symbols and truths, spin and substance, emblem and reality, so I want to start my brief contribution by speaking about symbols, for that has preoccupied many of the previous speakers. Jung said:
	Symbols are ideas. Whenever we use one we are pointing to the idea behind that symbol.
	He went on:
	the sign is always less than the concept it represents, while a symbol always stands for something more than its obvious and immediate meaning.
	One of my inspirations, my favourite thinkers and writers, G. K. Chesterton, said specifically on the cross:
	in criticising Christian symbolism, they talk much of dead churches and decaying creeds. They talk of a creed as a cant but their own talk itself is cant. They do not dislike the cross because it is a dead symbol, but because it is a live symbol
	and so it is with the symbols that we are debating today. They have meaning beyond their image. They have a significance that is widely understood; they are indeed alive. No more could be saidor perhaps needs to be saidabout the red cross than to point out that it is so widely recognised and so universally understood as to have a significance that is special and worthy of protection.
	I shall speak at some length about the Geneva convention, which is critical to this debate, and about the 1957 Act, but before I do so perhaps it is worth debating for a moment what was said in the other place about this Bill. The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Malloch-Brown said:
	the scope of the convention is relatively narrow, applying to only two categories of UN operations: those maintaining or restoring international peace and security; or those where the Security Council or the General Assembly has declared that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation. [ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2009; Vol. 707, c. 190.]
	The Bill is indeed narrow. None the less it is important that we understand the context in which we debate it. For that reason, I want to speak at some length, although not at inordinate length, about the 1949 Geneva convention, which is critical to our consideration and about which I have to say, without meaning criticism of hon. Members, we have heard too little so far this afternoon.
	The following briefly summarises the provisions of the 1949 Geneva convention that govern the use of the red cross, red crescent and, as was mentioned earlier, the red lion and sun flags. Geneva I governs land warfare. Geneva II governs warfare at sea. There are also Geneva III and IV, but they have no provisions concerning flags, so we must not waste time on them today.
	Article 138 of Geneva I provides for the use of the Swiss federal arms in reverse coloursthe red cross on a white groundas the
	emblem and distinctive sign of the Medical Service of armed forces.
	That was originally provided for in article 7 of the first Geneva convention. As Members will know, that was signed on 22 August 1864. The red crescentor red lion and sun in lieu of the red crosswas recognised for use by countries already using such devices when the 1949 convention was adopted.
	Geneva I, article 39, requires the emblemthe red cross and those othersto be
	displayed on the flags, armlets and on all equipment employed in the Medical Service.
	The same provision is contained in Geneva II, article 41.
	Geneva I, article 42, limits the display of the distinctive flag of the convention to
	medical units and establishments as are entitled to be respected under the Convention.
	It is permitted to be displayed in conjunction with the
	national flag of the Party...to which the unit or establishment belongs.
	The 1864 convention required it to be displayed with the national flag. When medical units fall into the hands of the enemy, they display only the flag of the convention. Indeed that is detailed, as Members will know, in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, about which I shall speak at some length later. It was specifically referred to in the Second Reading debate on that Bill, which I shall also be speaking about later.
	Geneva I, article 44, bans all uses of the red cross or equivalent emblems, including flags, other than
	to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material
	under the Geneva conventions, except that the national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies may use the emblems in peacetime for other activities in conformity with the principles of the Red Cross Movement. That reinforces the universality that I have argued previously is critical to our considerations today. In wartime, they may use the emblems for their activities only if they are clearly not implying the protection of the convention. International Red Cross organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross may use the red cross emblem at all times.
	Geneva II, article 43, requires hospital ships to make themselves known by
	hoisting their national flag and further, if they belong to a neutral state, the flag of the Party to the conflict whose direction they have accepted. A white flag with a red cross shall be flown at the mainmast as high as possible.
	Hospital ships which...are provisionally detained by the enemy, must haul down
	their national colours.
	Coastal lifeboats
	operating from a base which is occupied by the enemy may
	continue to fly their own national colours along with a flag carrying a red cross.

Greg Knight: In the case of a ship, which is by its very nature moving and may move from one arena to another, where the favoured emblem is different, it might be necessary for the ship to haul down the red cross and haul up the red crystal. That process might have to be repeated for each change in territorial waters.

John Hayes: That is indeed a problem. It was partly such arguments that stimulated the debate some 60 years ago, in which it was asserted with some forcefor me, it was a compelling argumentthat the red cross should be a universal symbol. My right hon. Friend will know why that is not the case. In the early days following the establishment of the conventions in the 1860s the Ottoman empire objected to the use of the cross, and it was as a compromise that the red crescent was introduced. My right hon. Friend could still, however, make a compelling case for the universal use of the red cross.

Hugo Swire: Conversely, the wounded on board a hospital ship could come from a variety of religious backgrounds, and there might be reason to fly the red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal. Does my hon. Friend understand whether anything would prevent any vessel from being marked with the three main emblems?

John Hayes: I have just been thumbing my copy of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, following the first inspection. It states clearly in article 18:
	Civilian hospitals organised to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
	States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.
	More pertinently perhaps, it continues:
	Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12th August, 1949, but only if so authorised by the State.
	The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces
	which addresses my right hon. Friend's intervention
	in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.
	There is a clear responsibility, whether on land or sea, for the states concerned to take all reasonable measures to ensure that a hospital or hospital ship is identified as such, so that no confusion can arise.

Greg Knight: Although it would not create a difficulty for a ship to fly the three flags at once, if the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) were followed in respect of a vehicle and it had to carry the three emblems, they might have to be smaller in size in order to be accommodated, and would therefore be less easy to identify by aircraft flying overhead.

John Hayes: That is true, and for that reason I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the further provision in article 18:
	In view of the dangers to which hospitals
	and, presumably, mobile facilities and ships
	may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.
	The convention makes it clear that the eventualities described by my right hon. and hon. Friends are less likely to occur if adequate precautions are taken.
	The plain red cross or red crescent flag is primarily used to identify medical units for military forces, as provided by the 1864 and subsequent Geneva conventions. I have referred to the 1957 Act which supports the conventions. If I had more time, I would like to speak about the 1997 Act, but it would not please the House were I to continue for too long, so I shall not go into that in any great detail.
	Although national Governments may authorise red cross or red crescent societies to use the flag provided, there is no possibility of confusion with the primary use of the flag. The convention also allows the various international Red Cross organisations, such as the ICRC and IFRC, to use the symbols as I described earlier. Therefore, the plain red cross is not a unique identifier of the ICRC. The basic right to use the red cross and red crescent flags does not derive from either of those organisationsit is the inherent right of all states that are party to the Geneva convention of 1949.
	Having said that, there has always been some disagreement. I mentioned the disagreement that followed the original arrangements, when there was a tension between the members and the Ottoman empire, which led to the compromise of the red crescent, but there have been many disagreementsalmost for the whole life of the conventionsabout the precise use of the red cross and, subsequently, the red crescent, and indeed about symbols per se.
	Earlier in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) talked about the possibility of many emblems being used and the confusion that might ensue. That specific suggestion has been made over the years by several states, not in order to cause confusion, but as a means of representing national interests in those parts of the world where the use of a crescent or cross might be seen to be invidious. We could speak at some length about Israel in that regard. There has been significant tension, because Israel would prefer to use a variation on the star of David. Of course, the obvious difficulty with that route is that it is Israel's national emblemindeed, it is on its national flagand the confusion that that would cause speaks for itself. The virtue of the red cross and the red crescent is that they are detached from the symbols of nation states; they have the universality that I describe.

Hugo Swire: rose

Simon Burns: rose

John Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is anxious to intervene, but I must make progress, so I shall frustrate him on this occasion.

Hugo Swire: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his blatant favouritism in giving way to me. What he says about Israel is absolutely right. Indeed, in 1949, when Israel signed the Geneva conventions, it clearly said that
	while respecting the inviolability of the distinctive signs and emblems of the Convention, Israel will use the Red Shield of David as the emblem and distinctive sign of the medical services of her armed forces.
	That is a recognition by Israel that, somehow, the red cross or the UN's emblems have some universality. It concedes that point and uses the red shield of David, which was originally its preferred option, for its armed forces. That is worth pointing out.

John Hayes: That is indeed so, but as my hon. Friend will know, Israel's Magen David Adom society uses the unrecognised red star of David as its emblem. As a result, the society is still not a member of the international Red Cross movementsomething that many Israelis think is unjust. As my hon. Friend invites me to say more about Israel, I will do so, with your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend has made the point that the star of David is an integral part of Israel's flag and is used by its military; but on the other side of the coin, of course, Arab and middle eastern states have the crescent on their national flagsPakistan, for example.

John Hayes: That is indeed true, and as a brief examination of the minutes reveals, it was one of the arguments used at the end of the 19th century against the adoption of the red crescent. Many of those who resisted that demand made precisely the point that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, many people in Israel understand the difficulty, and Israel's ambassador to the UN in Geneva shares that opinion. He would like to be a member of the international Red Cross and points out that the MDA is active all over the world. He says that it is often the first on the scenefor example, following the tsunami or earthquakesand that it deserves to be part of the international movement. There is a thirst on the part of Israelis to be part of the movement but a resistance to the use of the symbols that are adopted by the movement.
	As I have said, the problem is that the star of David is primarily Israel's national symbol, rather than an emblem of humanitarian relief. Even though it is true that the crescent appears on the flags of many states, I am not sure whether one could convincingly argue that those crescents are as intimately associated with the very identity of the nation as is the star of David with Israel. Lest any hon. Member or anyone elsewhere should think that I am critic of the state of Israel, I want to put on record that the opposite is the case. I am a staunch defender of that place and its people, but as a friend, one has the right to be critical on occasion. It would be better if Israel joined that international community and perhaps compromised in the use of universal symbols.

Gillian Merron: I hope that I can assist the hon. Gentleman by confirming that in 2006 the Israeli national society joined the international movement, because of the very subject that we are discussing todaythe addition of the red crystal, along with the red crescent and the red crossso it is not true to say that the Israeli national society is not a member of the international movement.

John Hayes: Yes, that is most helpful of the Minister. Indeed, I have a further note to that effect. Arab states have made it clear, however, that they will never accept recognition of the red star under the Geneva conventions. At the same time, the conventions stipulate that the national relief societies must use only recognised symbols, as she has made clear.

Gillian Merron: That certainly makes the case for supporting the Bill, for which I thank the hon. Gentleman.

John Hayes: There is a case for the Bill. I do not start from the presumption that it is implicitly unwelcome, but we need a thorough debate about it. Scrutiny in this place needs to be real and thorough, and the Executive need to be held to account. Opposition Members have made brief interventions, and we hope to hear more from Labour Members

Greg Knight: Where are they?

John Hayes: I am optimistic that we will hear more from Labour Members, as we must have detailed and thorough scrutiny.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend will recall that we have just served on a Public Bill Committee whose evidentiary sittings allowed us to put our questions and concerns to the bodies that would be directly impacted by the legislation. Today's debate on the Bill is rather truncated: does he agree that it would be better for us to break today so that we can have evidence sessions and a proper Public Bill Committee? We could then speak to representatives of the Red Cross and its derivative organisations and get answers to some of our very real concerns.

John Hayes: Indeed. Part of the problem in modern representative democracy is the balance of power between Executive and legislature. I could speak about that at immense length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you would not allow me to. I will therefore not be encouraged down that tributary because, although fascinating, it would not be relevant to this debate.
	I have been encouraged to speak about the difficulty of Israel. That difficulty has been exacerbated by the current circumstances of the middle east, which make it hard for Israel to cross borders and work in the occupied territories. The Minister has said that Israel is prepared to use the red crescent sign outside its borders, once the negotiations are over. Indeed, it has signed an agreement to that effect regarding the occupied territories.
	If we are to speak about Israel, it would be perverse not to speak about Syria also. On the surface, and given what the Minister said in her intervention, everything looks promising for the approval of a new emblem. If we had debated the matter a while ago, it would have been possible to assume that it would have been plain sailing.
	Switzerland is the repository state for the Geneva conventions. It sent out invitations for a conference on the matter, and the Swiss diplomats who played a key role in getting the agreement between the MDA and the Palestinian Red Crescent were optimistic. One issue might get in the way, however, and that is the fact that many Arab countries already see the third element as an unnecessary accommodation of Israel.
	Some people are suggesting that, now that the MDA has agreed to work with the Palestinian Red Crescent in the occupied territories, a similar agreement is necessary for the Golan heights.  [ Interruption. ] Is my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) keen to get in?

Charles Walker: My enthusiasm is purely for my hon. Friend's line of argument.

John Hayes: I mistook my hon. Friend's inherent enthusiasm and energy for a desire to intervene. I am always happy to accept interventions from him just as I am from my experienced and sagacious colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but I wish to express a different view from the one expressed in the previous intervention. What on earth has the position of Syria to do with whether we approve the Bill?

John Hayes: Syria is important because we are debating the establishment of a new emblem. If that emblem is to have the effect that we all want, it must attract a degree of universal acclaim.
	I accept that the red cross has not always done that, and a few moments ago we talked about the Ottoman empire and the subsequent evolution of the symbols concerned. None the less, the cross and the crescent combined at least seemed to enjoy a universality and a widespread recognition across borders that it is not clear that the new symbol will enjoy. That is why I raised the issue of Syria and the doubts in the Arab world about the motives and effects of the new symbol.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend has an enormous intellect, but is there not one slight flaw in his argument? We are not forcing the red crystal on to the Red Cross and the Red Crescent; they want it to be introduced. Is that not the case?

John Hayes: There are three things to note about that intervention. The first is that I do not have an enormous intellect; I am a pygmy among giants in this House. Secondly, of course there are flaws in my argument, because we are all flawed and faulted. We fell from a state of grace a long time ago. It is only having accepted our frailties that we can claim any kind of wisdom or accomplishment. The third point I did not entirely grasp.

Charles Walker: Well, I repeat my point. We are here in support of the Red Cross, which wants to bring the red crystal into being. We seem to be frightfully concerned about the position of the Red Cross, but it is very much in favour of the use of the red crystal. That is why we should have an evidence session before the Bill goes into Public Bill Committee, as it should do. We could then hear from the Red Cross, and it could make its case directly to us.

John Hayes: That is a good point, and I now understand it. Perhaps my intellect is growing by the moment. It is true that the Red Cross seems comfortable with the proposal, but I am not entirely sure whether that is a defensive response, or whether it is positively in favourwhether it would have sought the measure had circumstances been different from those that I am beginning to describe. It may be that the measure is an accommodation to deal with difficulties, rather than something that the Red Cross would have promoted of its own accord.

Christopher Chope: To what extent has my hon. Friend had regard, in making his argument, to the preamble to schedule 7 to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which is inserted by the schedule to the Bill? That preamble emphasises
	that the distinctive emblems are not intended to have any religious, ethnic, racial, regional or political significance.
	Any country that signs up to the protocol will have to accept that preamble.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend anticipates an aspect of the main part of my argument, which I will move on to when I finish these introductory remarks. When I spoke of the significance of symbols, I did not go on to describe in detail the fundamental character of the cross. Chesterton may be right about the reality that lies behind symbols. The reality of the cross is that it was used long before it was associated with Christian imagery. Its universality depends on that ancient lineage.

Hugo Swire: Talking of ancient lineages, we all know that ancient symbols can be hijacked by movements. I refer my hon. Friend to the events of 1977 when, as he will know, the Indian Red Cross Society consulted the International Committee of the Red Cross about using as its symbol a red swastikaa symbol long familiar in Indiaon a white ground. That symbol was, of course, hijacked long after it was invented, and became wholly unacceptable to most of the civilised world.

John Hayes: The swastika was hijacked, as my hon. Friend puts it, from the Greeks, was it not? It is a reference to the Nazis' desire to emulate the tokens and symbols of the ancient world. It is true that it has been used in India from ancient times, but it was as a Greek symbol that it gained the admiration of the wicked masterminds of the Third Reich. However, my hon. Friend is right that the hijacking of symbols is important in our considerations today. Indeed, the red cross was used as a symbol relatively recently by terrorists posing as serving a humanitarian purpose when they were, in fact, malevolent in their intent, so symbols in themselves are no guarantee. None the less, it is important that we understand their significance and defend their use where they serve a moral purpose, as I believe the red cross and the red crescent do.
	I must press on to say another word about Syria before I move on to the main body of my argument.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. His last point encapsulated the core of what I was seeking to say to the House earlierthat where someone deliberately uses the symbol and the name to masquerade as a humanitarian unit and then opens fire, perhaps on other people involved in the conflict, that is when the full 30 years' imprisonment mentioned in the Bill should come into play. Does my hon. Friend agree that where there is a totally unconnected use of the symbol or the name, as I suggested in my remarks, it is doubtful whether that should even be an offence?

John Hayes: It is not merely malevolence but confusion that we are dealing with. That is why I was attracted by the arguments that my right hon. Friend advanced when he said that he had been on the internetnot a practice that I personally indulge in, but I understand that there are those who have the kind of lives that allow them the time to do soand found that the red symbol was used for all kinds of purposes, none of which seemed to relate to humanitarian aid or any of the purposes of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent.
	There is a real risk of confusion resulting from the use of many symbols, combined or separately. The Bill makes it clear that they can indeed be combined in all sorts of ways. I am not sure in how many ways three symbols can be combined.

Charles Walker: rose

John Hayes: That would take a mathematician of the skill of my hon. Friend to calculate and briefly inform the House. I give way to him so that he can do so.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend may be premature in bringing his opening remarks to a conclusion before he has addressed concerns about organisations using the red cross in a way that diminishes its valuethat is, organisations not connected with bringing aid to the third world and war-torn parts of the world.

John Hayes: To confusion and malevolence we may add, I suppose, mischievous use of symbols. It is entirely possible that they might be used for not a criminal but an unhappy, mischievous purpose. The risk is likely to be exacerbated the more symbols we have. I am strongly committed to the principle of a universal symbol, as I highlighted earlier and will speak more about shortly.
	I must say a word or two more about Syria. The disputed territory of the Golan heights is what took us to the subject. Because it is disputed territory, some argue that the Syrian Red Crescent should have a role there. We look forward to hearing the Minister's thoughts about that in due course, as we draw to a conclusion later this evening.
	The Syrian Red Crescent cannot operate there,
	insisted the Israeli head of the MDA.
	We have no diplomatic relations with Syria, the issue is simply not in the debate. But I'm not excluding that some Arab countries will try to raise it, and if they do, the losers will be the Palestinians,
	he went on to say. So Geneva, usually a peaceful place, has become a hive of activity as officials have desperately tried to reconcile these conflicting views about the use of the cross, the crescent and other symbols.
	The ambassador for Pakistan is negotiating on behalf of 56 countries belonging to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and he said, with notable understatement, that it is all very complicated. It is, and although the Bill looks uncontentious on the surface, it is also complicated. We have no desire to make life difficult for the Government; we want to hold them to account, but only in a way that is appropriate. However, we do expect from them a full explanation of some of those complicated matters.

Hugo Swire: One solution that would do away with all these territorial problemsit would be wholly ridiculous and unacceptable, but would need to be addressed at some stagewould be for us to do away with the red cross and the red crescent altogether as symbols and merely have a non-contentious symbol such as the red crystal. That gets us back to the original idea of having one universally recognised and uncontentious symbol.

John Hayes: We have come to expect such inventiveness from my hon. Friend; we have not heard that argument thus far in the debate, but it has some merit. None the less, I do not agree with it, so I shall move on.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend cannot casually dismiss that excellent contribution without exploring it a little further. Why is he dismissing it so out of hand?

John Hayes: I do not want to be unnecessarily contentious, but I dismiss the point for the reason that I offered at the outset of my contribution. The virtues of the red cross are that it is widely recognised, easy to understand and well established. I know that there are not only conservatives on the Conservative Benches of the House, but I would have thought that my hon. Friend would understand that pretty intrinsic to the Conservative appreciation of the world is the notion that what is time-honoured should be valued, and that changes should be made only when absolutely necessary. By and large I try to resist change, but even I recognise that sometimes it is absolutely necessary. However, surely that does not apply on this occasion.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend has slapped me in the face and laid down the gauntlet. Seriously, we must be pragmatic and not ideological about this. The role of the Red Cross is to save as many lives as possible and alleviate suffering wherever it can. At some time in the future, the red crystal may have more resonance in more parts of the world and should be the universal symbol of an organisation bringing aid. Religious baggage should not be attached to the Red Cross because it came from Switzerland. However, such baggage is being attached to that symboland to the crescent, and to the flag under which Israel operates.

John Hayes: That is a perfectly reasonable argument and it would, I suppose, be a way out of this mess. However, the cost of abandoning a well-established emblem such as the red cross would be an expensive price to pay to deal with the albeit important matters implicit in my hon. Friend's intervention. There is just as strong an argument for the universal adoption of the red cross, and it has supporters and weight within the international movement. Indeed, as my hon. Friend will know, that argument was made forcefully at the end of the 1940s.

Hugo Swire: I do not want my hon. Friend to read anything into this; I am not abandoning the idea that the Red Cross should be the umbrella organisation. However, he needs to reflect that an enormous numberif not the greatest proportionof the countries where the aid agencies operate, and are likely to be needed in future, are non-Christian. In other words, the number of countries where the Red Cross will operate under the symbol of the red cross must surely diminish in direct proportion to the number where it will operate under the symbol of the red crescent or the red crystal.

John Hayes: Perhaps I made myself

Simon Burns: Unclear?

John Hayes: I was going to say that perhaps I made myself unhelpfully unclear in my earlier argument. Perhaps, and this is more likely, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) was not listening carefully enough when I said that the red cross is not solely a Christian symbolindeed, it is arguably not one at all. Of course, the cross is a Christian symbol but the use of the cross relates to a much more ancient recognition of the symbol as a symbol of peace. Let me take the use of the white flag as a parallel example. Since time began, the white flag has been recognised as a symbol of submission or surrender. The symbol of a cross has ancient lineage, as I have described, that predates its use as a Christian image. I made that point once. I have now made it twice. I do not expect to have to make it a third time.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend is in robust form. The cross is perceived to have religious connotations. In a battlefield, there will not be time for my hon. Friend to deliver one of his forceful and robust speeches to explain the complexities of the cross. It is perceived in the heat of battle to be a Christian symbol. Yes, that perception is wrong, but it is the perception. Surely my hon. Friend recognises that in framing his argument.

John Hayes: That was the argument when the red crescent was adopted. In the 1870s, the Ottoman empire made precisely the arguments that are being made by my hon. Friends and the international community agreed to establish the Red Crescent as a response. I am not sure that the argument was compelling then and I am not sure that it is compelling now. The cross, to a certain mind, might be perceived in the way my hon. Friend describes, but that probably says more about that mind than it does about the cross. I remain convinced that the use of the cross has immense value in the universality it provides, with all the protection that that brings. We want those who are serving noble purposes and offering humanitarian relief, aid and medical services to benefit from the protection given by a symbol such as the cross.
	I remain doubtful that extending the number of symbols is likely to offer such blanket protection. Not only is there the possibility of malevolent or mischievous use, but, almost more significantly, there is the possibility of confusion. Until my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne can answer that charge, I feel that his argument has less strength than he might assume.

Charles Walker: If my argument lacks strength, I apologise, but the red crystal is being brought forward by the Red Cross. Will my hon. Friend please address his remaining opening remarks to the Red Cross and explain to the Red Cross why he is opposed to its bringing forward the red crystal, which it believes will enhance its mission in the field, not devalue it?

John Hayes: When a right hon. Gentleman as eminent as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire tells this House that he has beenI think that this is the phrasesurfing the net and has discovered the use of the red crystal as a symbol for a combination of bordellos, fashion houses and rock stars, we, as responsible Members, have a duty to hear him and to consider that evidence. We should do that not just because of my right hon. Friend's sagacity but because of the evidence that he provided. If my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne chose to surf the net, he might find even more examples of the use of red and other crystals for all kinds of good and more nefarious purposes.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene; he is making a very powerful speech. Does he agree that, in designing a new symbol, if so much effort goes into making it totally non-contentious and impossible to interpret, so that no person, group, country, religion or faith could be offended by it, there is a danger that the result will have none of the power, impact or values of the traditional symbols, which creates the dilemma that we may lose all the associated features of the red cross in a non-contentious red crystal?

John Hayes: As ever, my hon. Friend brings fresh insight to the debate. In that interesting intervention, she reminds the whole House of Proust, who argued that the dilution of symbols robs them of meaning. It is important to appreciate that the cross is not only widely accepted and easily recognised but has substance. The symbol that we are presented with may be so anodyne that it has neither substance nor meaning for many of the people who see itexcept, I suppose, those who have surfed the net.

Simon Burns: I seek a little clarification on two points. First, my understanding is that the symbol used by the Red Cross was a reversal of the national flag of Switzerland, so I cannot see the religious connotation. Secondly, I thought that the whole point of the red cross and the red crescent was that they were not aligned with a religion or a faith but used as symbols of humanitarian aid and assistance. If I am right in those two suppositions, how are my hon. Friends right in theirs?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is right. The red cross was adopted not because of its connotation with any particular creed or belief but because it was not so associated, being an ancient symbol that predates the use of the cross in Christian imagery.
	There is a certain type of guilt-ridden bourgeois liberal who is so defensive about our Christian heritage that they see ghosts around every corner and doubt wherever they turnI was about to say reds under every bed, but I suppose I do not quite mean that. I hope that that is not true of my hon. Friends, but they are being slightly too defensive about the perceived relationship between the red cross and the Christian faith, and possibly too defensive about the Christian faith per se.

Hugo Swire: I am happy to be accused of being a liberal, but certainly not bourgeois. I largely agree with my hon. Friend, but he must recognise that these symbols can be hijacked. Back in 1864this predates my hon. Friendthe Ottoman empire made representations under the Geneva convention because it claimed that the red cross emblem
	gave offence to Muslim soldiers.
	From that point on, the red cross stopped being the universal symbol. He must recognise that some symbols can cause offence to some communities in a way that he may not have thought through.

John Hayes: That is true. However, if we were to be cowed by everyone who took offence at the use of these symbols, the red cross might never have been established as it was, with the immense benefits to all concerned, and we would have ended up with symbols from every nation or state without the universality that I recommend to the House so strongly, and which is increasingly significant in a world that is global in character in respect of conflict, tension, terrorism, humanitarian aid and many other things. That was recognised by the Liberal spokesman in the House of Lords, who described the increasingly international nature of these matters as a reason for the adoption of the red crystal. I take the opposite view that the increasingly international nature of the things I described reaffirms the case for a single symbol. That might be the crescent, as my hon. Friend suggests, or more properly and logically, it might be the cross.

Charles Walker: I have the highest regard for my hon. Friend, but why will he not recognise in his argument that we live in complex times?

John Hayes: The times are complex for all of us, but particularly for my hon. Friend. I do not disregard his argument; it is just one with which I cannot agree. The red cross, with all that it means and has meant, brings immense benefit as a symbol in the manner identified by the convention, and in the way envisaged by the architects of the original international agreement in 1864. To abandon all of that which is time-honoured would be unwise.

Michael Fabricant: I was here at the beginning of the debate, but was unfortunately called away. I saw some of it, however, through the television apparatus in my office and I followed my hon. Friend's arguments with considerable interest. I mentioned at the beginning of the debate the vexed issue of the red star of Davidthe Magen David Adom. Does my hon. Friend agree that if people attempting to give aid to those in the Gaza strip were seen climbing out of a vehicle so marked, it would be unacceptable to Hamas, and dangerous for those giving the aid?

John Hayes: We had a brief debate about the occupied territories, and about the Golan heights, although I did not mention the Gaza strip

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman's preliminary remarks, but he is getting a little repetitive and I wondered whether he could move on to the main body of his argument.

John Hayes: I was just about to do so.

Charles Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

John Hayes: I will not give way to my hon. Friend again because I fear that he is attempting to seduce meoratorically speaking, of courseby taking me down all sorts of roads I do not want to go down. He has had a fair crack of the whip, and I must make progress.

Graham Stuart: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: I must make progress. I will give way in a few moments' time, once I have dealt with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) as briefly as I can, and before moving to the main thrust of my arguments.
	Earlier, I quoted Masood Khan, the ambassador for Pakistan, who has the matters that my hon. Friend raised at heart because the tensions over Israel are highly pertinent to our consideration of the Bill and the wider considerations of the international community about the use of these symbols. However, I did not quote Mr. Khan as extensively as the House would wish me to. He says:
	All sides are making honest endeavours to reach agreement. We must create the right kind of environment where we have understanding between the Israeli and Syrian national societies, because of the question of occupied Golan and whether the Syrian Red Crescent can operate there.
	When I spoke of that earlier, the Minister intervened to suggest that there were indeed signs of progress and hope of a breakthrough. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield was right to raise the issue because Israela country with an outstanding record on humanitarian aid, which we saw during the tsunami and other events mentioned earlierwants to be a member of the international community in these terms, and the efforts of Mr. Khan and others are designed to ensure that outcome.
	I must move on, because

Hugo Swire: Will my hon. Friend indulge me and give way on that point?

John Hayes: Very briefly, but my hon. Friend is, I hate to say, becoming rather mischievous.

Hugo Swire: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he not agree that if Israel wishes to be taken seriously in aid matters, particularly as far as the UN is concerned, it needs as a priority to clear up what went on at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza?

John Hayes: I will not go down that road

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that he would now be right to resist some interventions and move forward a little.

John Hayes: Thank for your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that my hon. Friends will not attempt to divert me from my principal argument.
	Before we started down this long tributary, I was going to speak a little about the Geneva convention, and particularly

Charles Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: No, I am not going to give way again. We have had a good run on these issues, and I want to move to the main thrust of my argument. I have quite a good deal to say about the Second Reading of the 1957 Act, which has not yet had a proper airing. There will simply not be time to finish before 7 pm if I give way continually to my hon. Friend, much as I admire him and, more than that, have deep affection for him.
	Lon Nyssen received a letter in French from the ICRC, quoting the acts of the Geneva convention of 1949. The conventions of this House will not allow me to read any French, nor will my imperfect grasp of that language, so with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall read it in translation. It states:
	On purpose it has been desired not to determine the shape of the red cross, which determination would have given way to dangerous abuses...If the shape of the cross had been determined in an immutable way, would not one try to justify attacks against buildings protected by the Convention, arguing that the symbols did not have the settled proportions?
	As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, nowadays it is normal in ordered, peaceful conditions for the red cross to be modelled more or less on the Swiss flag, or its reverse. However, it seems from old documents that before the 1950s the shape of the cross was usually much thinner, even one third of the width of the Swiss cross. Indeed, I had a look earlier and found out that even in the past 20 years, there have been small changes to how the cross is routinely presented.

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

John Hayes: I will happily give way.

Michael Fabricant: Is not the cross always represented with equi-length arms so as to distinguish it from the Christian cross, or have I got that wrong?

John Hayes: No, that is precisely the case. That reinforces the argument that I have made at considerable length in response to the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. That is precisely why confusion should not, and for the most part does not, arise. The cross is drawn in essence not from Christian imagery but from a much more ancient image. The sign of the cross was used long before the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross and so saved us from our sins. The misunderstanding that has arisen has surprised me, given the incisive and intelligent contributions that my hon. Friend normally makes. He has repeatedly come to the wrong conclusion.

Charles Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Hayes: Having been slightly critical of my hon. Friend, although I have said that I am immensely fond of him, I shall give way to him again.

Charles Walker: I am greatly enjoying my hon. Friend's speech and I hope that he does not cut it short because I have nowhere to be this evening. If there were a vote on the programme motion, I would vote against it because I believe that the Bill should go into Committee and that we should conduct pre-legislative evidence sessions with the Red Cross. However, if we were voting on Third Reading tonight, would my hon. Friend vote with the Red Cross to introduce the red crystal or put his concerns on the record by voting against the measure?

John Hayes: Like all responsible Members, I would listen to the evidence. I would not have a preconceived view of such a significant subject. I would listen to the measured arguments that the Red Cross and others made. It is odd that my hon. Friend argues for witness sessions but asks me to say what I would do before I heard the witnesses. That is no way to conduct our affairs and he should know better. I will not give way to him againit merely encourages him.
	If I do not make progress, I will have no chance to speak about the contribution of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport division (Miss Vickers) on Second Reading in 1957. Unless we consider that, I do not understand how we can reach any conclusion.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He is awarealthough some other hon. Friends are less soof the power of the original red cross symbol and knows that any attempt to dilute it will remove some of its almost magic qualities on the battlefield of ensuring that those under it are protected. I congratulate him on his view. He is also right that we need to hear more evidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) said, we need to hear from the Red Cross, and driving through a programme motion today is singularly inappropriate.

John Hayes: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has not joined that army of guilt-ridden bourgeois liberals to whom I referred earlier. He has no doubt in his heart about the use of the cross because it might be perceived as Christian. Not only does he accept my argument that its lineage is much longer, but he has no guilt about the Christian heritage of western civilisation. I must not go down that track.
	Let me refer to the 1957 debate because the then hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport division made a major contribution to Second Reading of the Bill, which became an Act and which the measure amends. She spoke with considerable authority because, as she told the House on that occasion, she had worked for the Red Cross in this country and overseas for many years. She was therefore especially enthusiastic that the Bill should become an Act. She described the work of the Red Crossbarely 11 years after the last great waras invaluable, not only in war but in peace. She wanted to address her remarks particularly to the work in which she had been involved with civilians. We would now call it humanitarian aid, although I am not sure whether that term existed then. She drew attention to the articles that specifically applied to civilians and discussed article 100, which deals with civilians in times of war.
	Stimulated by a brief examination of that speech, I took a close look at the 1957 Act itself. I hope that other hon. Members have done that. I do not mean to sound critical, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will say rather more about that measure in her summation than she did in her introductory remarks. The Bill can be seen only in that context and the wider context of the conventions that had their genesis in the 1860s, but still apply, in their form and practice, throughout the world today.
	The pressures of time and my anxiety for this debate to finish before the House rises are such that I will not say a great deal more about the 1957 Act at this stage. However, I want to conclude my remarks with a number of questions for the Minister. They are questions that have arisen not only from today's debate, but from the consideration of the Bill, the international debate about such matters and the context that I have described. The questions focus on five or six areas.
	The Minister needs to tell the House what evidence exists of attacks on Red Cross or Red Crescent personnel that have their origin in resistance or hostility towards those emblems. I have yet to hear any evidence in this debate that those attacks have been about the emblems, rather than about something more fundamental or more contextual. Unless evidence is brought forward that those emblems have stimulated hostility, the argument for a new symbol will be less persuasive.
	The second question to which I want the Minister to respond relates to the timetable and the costs of the change. It is perfectly reasonable for the House to want to know what time scale the implementation of the new measures will be governed by. The Minister will also want to bring to the House's attention the notional costs of implementation, which her Department will surely have drawn up.
	To reflect this afternoon's debate, the third question for the Minister to answer is about how much consideration was given to the accommodation of those who are hostile to the symbol of the cross and about how much counter-consideration was given to the adoption of the cross as a universal symbol. I do not want to reprise the argument of the 1870s today, but one understands why a compromise was reached to deal with the complaints of the Turks then.
	However, if a new symbol were to be established that was designed to have universal appeal, it is as good an argument to say that it should have been the cross as it is to suggest that it should be a new crescent. There are perhaps even stronger arguments for reverting to something that is already well established, because the battle is half won, if I can put it that way. The crescent would take considerable time to gain the kind of recognition that the cross already enjoys.

Charles Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way briefly?

John Hayes: I will give way very briefly, because like an indulgent father, I seek to learn from and to teach my hon. Friend.

Charles Walker: I only try to be helpful. In his last sentence, my hon. Friend talked about the red crescent, when I think that he meant to say red crystal.

John Hayes: I did mean to say that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has illustrated my very point: that I learn from him almost every day.
	The final question relates to scrutiny of the legislation. We have had a brief debate, and the argument has been made that we should have had more time to consider the Bill. It has even been suggested that we should have had witnesses. I do not necessarily agree with that, but I would be interested to hear the Minister's perspective on it. Could we have benefited? Might the debate have been better informed if we had been able to scrutinise the Red Cross in the way that hon. Members have suggested? I make no judgment about that, but it is at least worthy of a ministerial response.
	I am sorry to have had to abridge my remarks in the interests of the whole House, because there is much more that I wanted to say. I know, however, that these matters will be aired fully in the summations. It is to be hoped that, as the Bill wends its way through this House and the other place, we will have longer and more detailed discussions about its origin and its effect, and about the possible problems that it might give rise to. Having said that, this is a relatively non-controversial measure, and it is not one that the House will want to hear too much more about, either from me or any other hon. Member.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure, the Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 21, so the Question was agreed to. I also have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day on the motion relating to the May day Adjournment. The Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 103, so the Question was agreed to.
	 [The Division lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Christopher Chope: Mr. Deputy Speaker, that last result that you read out will be of great interest to people outside the House. We are increasingly getting a reputation for wanting to curtail our proceedings, but that vote shows that no fewer than 103 of our colleagues want the House to sit on May day bank holiday in order to hold the Government to account.
	I want to express my disappointment that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has curtailed his remarks. I hope that he did not do so in order for me to take over from him, because I cannot follow his act. Indeed, if there were a crystal award for conciseness and claritywhether a red crystal or an ordinary onehe would receive it.
	I want to make a few comments about where we are getting to with the red cross symbol. I was rather depressed to read the summing up by Lord Malloch-Brown in the other place on 27 January, in which he explained what he expects to happen as a result of what a number of colleagues have called a dilution of the symbolism of the red cross. He asserted that it was not the Government's intention to destroy the Red Cross, stating that
	the British Red Cross is safe with this Government.
	 [ Laughter. ] I note that that has caused derisive laughter among some of my colleagues. Lord Malloch-Brown went on to say that
	over time, we expect more and more countries to avail themselves of the Red Crystal because unfortunately the polarisation around religion and religious symbols seems likely to grow rather than dissolve as the world moves forward.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2009; Vol. 707, c. 197.]
	He sees that process as inevitable, but I find that outlook very depressing. He effectively said that the Government are engaging in appeasement. Indeed, the whole of the British and international Red Cross movement now seems unwilling to hold the line that the red cross and red crescent symbols are not religious or political symbols. That line has now been abandoned, and we shall increasingly find ourselves in a mess.
	This will mean that the great intentions of the founder of the Red Cross movement, Henry Dunant, will not be able to be realised. In 1863, he set out the basis for a new symbol, stating that it needed to be simple, identifiable from a distance, known to everyone and identical for friend and foe. The emblem had to be the same for everyone and universally recognisable. It is apparent from today's debate that there will be a proliferation of different symbols, which will inevitably not be so clear or identifiable from a distance. Those symbols will not be the same for everyone, and it will be even more difficult to obtain universal recognition for them. I therefore think that this is a retrograde step.
	One of my hon. Friends has said that the red crystal symbol could easily be mistaken for other symbols already used by the military. My recollection from driving across Salisbury plain is that the red crystal symbol relates to roads that are used by tanks. I am sure that there are all sorts of other uses of that symbol, which could create confusion rather than clarity. One is left wondering why the principles enunciated in the first Geneva convention passed in 1864, which is popularly regarded as the time when modern international humanitarian law was begun, are now being undermined. I fear that the Government and the international community have not thought this through. I am not sure whether appeasement will get us anywherein fact, I am certain that it will not.
	My second point relates to scepticism about the United Nations and other international organisations that use high-flown words and phrases. The Bill inserts schedule 7 into the Geneva Conventions Act 1957. The preamble contains all that language with which we are so familiar, but which does not mean anything whatever. If it meant something, relatively few countries would want to sign up to the schedule.
	The preamble says, among other things, that the signatories to the schedule would have to note that
	this Protocol is without prejudice to the recognized right of High Contracting Parties to continue to use the emblems they are using in conformity with their obligations under the Geneva Conventions and, where applicable, the Protocols additional thereto.
	It goes on to stress
	that the distinctive emblems are not intended to have any religious, ethnic, racial, regional or political significance.
	In order for countries to sign up to the schedule, they have to accept that the existing symbols of the red cross and the red crescent do not have
	any religious, ethnic, racial, regional or political significance,
	but it is quite apparent that they do not actually believe that. Will that prevent them from signing up to this convention?
	The preamble goes on, emphasising
	the importance of ensuring full respect for the obligations relating to the distinctive emblems recognized in the Geneva Conventions, and, where applicable, the Protocols... thereto,
	while recognising
	the difficulties that certain States and National Societies may have with the use of existing distinctive emblems.
	These are the typical weasel words that we find in so much of this type of legislation.
	What concerns me as much as anything is the fact that those symbols are not going to be enforced. We have had the recitation of a number of horrific incidents across the world where no respect whatever has been shown to these symbols, whether they be a red cross, a red crescent or, indeed, a red crystal. What is happening now is that people risking their lives on overseas expeditions in order to serve the cause of humanity are being picked off, and the people who attack them are beyond and above the law because there is no way of enforcing the sanctions against them that should be entered into under the Geneva conventions and associated protocols.
	I feel that, in a sense, the debate is taking place in a vacuum, under the illusion that somehow it will make some difference on the ground, when we know that in almost all the areas in which the United Nations currently operates, the host countries have not even complied with, or put their signatures to, the conventions that we are discussing. I wonder whether we should tell the United Nations that it should not enter those countries unless or until they are prepared to sign up to what are very basic humanitarian agreements. That might concentrate some minds.
	The Government have done the House a disservice by producing a regulatory impact assessment which is far from adequate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) has pointed out, the section on the small firms impact test does not take account of the fact that a fair number of organisations already use the expression red crystal. Although that symbol has not been recognised as a registered trademark, many organisations would not have wanted to register it, because they would not have thought it worth registering. Small firms using that symbol may be caught out by the legislation, which will criminalise the use of that symbol or those words. I hope that the Minister will respond to the real concerns on that subject.
	I shall make my remarks extremely brief, but I find it extraordinary that, for the second time in as many Bills, not a single Government Back Bencher has participated on Second Reading. The first occasion was the Second Reading debate on the Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill, which took place two or three weeks agoon the very day on which the Government Chief Whip addressed the Press Gallery, saying that he wanted to enter into a new compact with members of his party involving their participating in our affairs. That compact may have just been spin, and it is certainly not working. I find it extraordinary that the Government, or their Back Benchers, seem to have given up.

Greg Knight: One issue on which the Minister has given no answer to those Conservative Members who have raised it is the date of commencement for the proposed legislation. If the Bill is as welcome and as overdue as the Minister would have us believe, why does clause 3 not specify a commencement date?

Christopher Chope: I hope that the Minister will respond to that question. When I examined the detail, it was apparent to me that as soon as the Bill was passed the Government could ratify the protocol, and that under the terms of the protocol the measure would come into effect six months after ratification. I am not sure about the significance of the fact that we have no clear commencement date, but perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter.

John Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be unfair to point out not only that few Labour Members have spoken[Hon. Members: None!]but that Labour Back Benchers have been entirely absent from the debate? Would it be unfair to put that on the record, or shall I do so?

Christopher Chope: I do not think that putting the truth on the record can ever be regarded as unfair. My hon. Friend has effectively criticised me for being unduly generous to Government Back Benchers by failing to draw attention to the fact that none are present, let alone participating in the debate. But let us hope that they will support us in the Lobby and oppose the programme motion, which will enable more of them to participate in the remaining stages of this very important Bill.

Graham Stuart: I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that we must look for every opportunity to allow Labour Members of Parliament to engage in Parliament, especially given the fact that the Leader of the House has said that 5 per cent. of Labour Members are bone idle.

Christopher Chope: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have probably dealt sufficiently with the question of attendance in the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will move on to the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is worth pointing out, however, that, by convention, a Second Reading debate in the House takes up one whole day. Earlier we saw some movement on the Government Benches suggesting to me, if not to others, that there might be some move on the part of the Government to try to curtail this very important Second Reading debate, just because no Government Back Benchers wanted to participate. I hope that we will not have a situation where, because one side does not wish to participate, the other side is prevented from being able to exercise their democratic right to hold the Government to account.
	That is the situation with this Bill. A series of important questions have been raised. Were the Government to try to put the Question, it would deprive the Minister of the opportunity to respond to those real concerns. Because a lot of time is still available, I hope that the Minister will not feel inhibited in any way and will respond as fully as possible to the concerns that so many Conservative Members have properly made about the Bill.

Gillian Merron: We have had a comprehensive debate. We have heard immense support for the British Red Cross and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, which I welcome. In the round, I will take from the debate that the Government have support from most, if not all, of the House to implement these measures. Doing so, as I said earlier, will help to safeguard the invaluable work of UN, medical and other personnel worldwide.
	In picking up the main themes of the debate and reminding the House why we are here, particularly in respect of clause 1, I can do no better than to refer to the letter and briefing that were made available to every right hon. and hon. Member from the chief executive of the British Red Cross. I am sure that it has been widely read in advance of today's debate:
	Ratification of the Protocol will give the United Kingdom Armed Forces the ability to use the red crystal emblem in situations where it may provide them with greater protection. It will also consolidate the United Kingdom's position as one of the leading States in respect for and implementation of international humanitarian law. The British Red Cross is fully supportive of these provisions and hope that we may be able to count on your support in ensuring their safe passage through Parliament.
	I want to pick up some of the questions that have been raised today. Clause 1 refers to the extension of the emblems to include the red crystal. First, on the important matter that right hon. and hon. Members have raised about getting better recognition through a newer symbol than the red cross and red crescent, I do not foresee, nor has the international movement made me aware of, any of the difficulties that right hon. and hon. Members have outlined. It is true, however, that recognition of the red crystal will have to increase, and we will train our armed forces. I know that the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement will play a full part in the through training and promotion of that important emblem. It will take time, but we have to start somewhere. Ratification is our contribution to that start.
	The question of which emblem should be used has been raised, and I reiterate what I said in my opening remarks. That is a decision for those who will use the emblem, whether it is the national societies or the military commanders in theatre. We do not keep a list of countries and their likely attitudes to that matter and believe that such decisions are best made by those who use the emblem.

John Hayes: It is my understanding that the emblems can be used alone or in combination, which could lead to an extraordinary range of approaches in different countries. Is that likely to be confusing?

Gillian Merron: I have a lot of respect for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and its experience, and it has requested this change. When emblems are used as protection against attack in a conflict situation, they cannot be used in combination. Only one of the three distinctive emblems will be used for protective purposes. But in non-conflict and domestic situations, a national society could choose to use the red cross, the red crescent or the red star of David within the red crystal in conformity with the relevant national legislation, which is another reason why the Bill is important. The British Red Cross could, therefore display an emblem showing the red cross within the frame of the red crystal, but only to promote its activities within the UK.
	A further area of questioning concerned what would happen if there were attacks on those using the new or existing symbols, which relates to the issue of protection. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, the emblem is not a literal shield around people, much as we might like it to be. Prosecution will be a matter for national prosecuting authorities, and by ratifying these protocols we will send a message to others to do likewise and give impetus to the promotion of a third protective symbol.
	Reference has been made to existing users and the regulatory impact assessment. We do not foresee any impact on businesses or charities, and there has been full consultation across Government. There are protections in clause 1(5) for existing users of the red crystal, which apply except where there would be confusion in armed conflict. Not only does that reflect article 6.2 of the protocols, so other countries will have the same rules, but it is unlikely that a ladies dress shop or a book title will cause confusion in armed conflict situations.
	On the issue of control of use in the future, that would only apply where it is justified in the public interest.
	On definitions in respect of clause 2, the important point is that those categories represent a sensible widening of scope, something that we do not have at present. It is true that there is no single agreed definition for peace building, but we do not anticipate a problem in practice. Peace building, as right hon. and hon. Members will be more than well aware, is the phase after peace making and peacekeeping when a violent conflict has slowed down or halted.
	Humanitarian assistance is, as right hon. and hon. Members know, deployed at times of humanitarian crisis, such as natural disasters. Political and development assistance is always part of a long-term solution to provide a lasting strengthening of a nation's capability and capacity to recover from times of trouble.
	Several points were raised about procedure, such as the time taken to bring the Bill before the House. Right hon. and hon. Members know that, as with any legislation, we need to find a place for it in the legislative programme. We prepared the Bill by working closely with the British Red Cross, to which I again extend my appreciation and thanks. Once the parliamentary process is complete, the UK will ratify the protocols as soon as possible, and statutory instruments will be laid to give effect to them. There are no significant financial implications.
	On the question of scrutiny, right hon. and hon. Members know that the Bill started life in the other place and that it is not practice to take evidence on Bills that do so. However, this Bill is destined for the scrutiny of the whole House in Committee, so there will be no parliamentary opportunity for an evidence session. I repeat that the Bill has been prepared and drawn up in full consultation with the British Red Cross, which has used its expertise to bring many great aspects to the Bill.
	On clause 2 and the Bill's coverage, the protocol covers only UN workers. However, we continue to press for a fuller set of protectionsfor example, for those who work for Save the Children or Oxfam. Of course, other criminal offences can be committed by people who attack humanitarian personnel, whoever they work for.
	On the international legislative position, I reiterate that five countries with UN missions in their territories have signed the protocol. For us, the adoption of the protocol is a very serious matter and a demonstration of the importance that we place on it. In reality, we are seeking to lead by example, but we will continue to lobby international partners to do likewise. As we have heard, 87 countries have ratified the convention. A further 34 countries have signed the protocol, and 16 have ratified it. The protocol will come into force once 22 countries have ratified it.
	A question was asked about the protocol's application. The convention and the protocol apply not only in states that have ratified them, but wherever a UN operation is taking place, so people can be brought to justice in the UK for acts committed elsewhere.
	A question was asked about whether the Bill should amend the list of offences in the United Nations Personnel Act 1997. No further change is needed under the Bill, and any necessary consequential amendments were made when sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Act were changed.

Greg Knight: The Minister is being very generous in giving wayI appreciate itbut will she tell the House whether this is the first Bill that we have ever debated that contains a logo in the schedule?

Gillian Merron: It is tempting to answer, but I am afraid that I cannot. I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman to give him an accurate reply, but I would not describe the red crystal as a logo; it is an emblem of protection, which is certainly how the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies seeks to present it.
	A question was asked about the difference between optional and additional protocols. There is no such difference in legal effect. The truth is that the terminology is not always consistent, contrary to what one might like. The word optional is used because Governments can decide whether to become party to such a protocol, which commits only those who ratify it.
	Further questions were asked about why this is a reserved matter, the extension to the overseas territories and other areas. Such things are, of course, quite normal in the UK legislative framework.
	In closing, I ask the House to join me in paying tribute to all those courageous men and women who continue to work under the most difficult and dangerous conditions to save and improve the lives of others. The majority of us have been spared the horrors of war, but for those caught up in conflict, we can only imagine their sense of relief and gratitude for the humanitarian support provided by the UN, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the many other organisations that do such work. In passing the Bill, we will make our own small but significant contribution to their efforts. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND UNITED NATIONS PERSONNEL (PROTOCOLS) BILL [ LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords]:
	 Committal 
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	 Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading 
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
	3. Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
	5. Standing Order No. 83B (programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading.
	6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. (Ms Butler.)
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 452, Noes 16.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Contracting-out) (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 23 February, be approved. (Ms Butler.)
	 Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. David Cameron relating to the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 may be proceeded with as if Standing Orders Nos. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and 17 (Delegated legislation (negative procedure)), were applicable thereto. (Ms Butler.)

Rating and Valuation (S.I., 2009,  No. 204)

Bob Neill: I beg to move,
	That the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 (S.I., 2009, No. 204) dated 5 February 2009, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 February, be revoked.
	It is a pleasure to return yet again to the issue of the effect of certain changes in port rating. Before the Minister looks up in despair, I should say that I return to it without apology. This debate gives us an opportunity to look not only at the issue set out in the regulations, but at what has given rise to the regulations. The regulations attempt to provide a measure of relief to port businesses that, on any objective measure, have been subject to gross injustice and unfair treatment. This debate gives us the opportunity to address that issue once again.

Frank Field: Some of us on this side of the House have to make up our minds about what to do, so it would be helpful to know at the beginning how the Opposition are going to vote on the motion.

Bob Neill: If the right hon. Gentleman is patient and listens to me, he will be enlightened in due course. It will help him if I put everything into context; that will lead him to where we are going to be.
	How has this regulation come about? It is an attempt by the Government to pick up some of the mistakes of the Valuation Office Agency, for which the Department for Communities and Local Government does not have direct responsibility, but which is the responsibility of the Treasury. Those mistakes were made at a time when, ironically, the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the Treasury's having taken its eye off the VAO, but that is the simple chronology of the matter.
	What has arisen is this: after the 55 registered ports were denationalisedfor good reasonsit was initially decided that they should be rated under a system different from that relating to other businesses in the UK. Rates were raised through a system of prescription by the Secretary of State. The payments generally took place through a system known as the cumulo, in which the port businessesthe warehousemen, the stevedores, the crane operators, the importers of vehicles, the engineers and so onpaid their rents and rates to the port owner. In due course, the rate element was paid to the local authority, which had a duty to collect. The rates were then paid to the Treasury, as they were national non-domestic rates.
	It was a reasonable enough proposition back in 2003 for the Government to decide to move to normal rating practice for the businesses in the ports and to move away from the cumulo. We could have debated the matter separately, but it is not the main issue. To achieve that change, the VOA was tasked with drawing up an up-to-date rating list, and that is where the catalogue of errors starts. The prescription system had in fact been extended to 2005. The VOA has a statutory duty to maintain accurate rating lists and that was due to come into force on 1 April 2006. Of course, today is a particularly important day for us to be discussing the issue of rating because it is the quarter daymany people are filing and so the rate bills are dropping on their doormats.
	The practical effect of the VOA was, frankly, woefully negligent and inadequate. It did not start the preparatory work until after the due date in 2006. It managed somehow to inform the owners and operators of the ports but not generally the businesses that they would be rated separately and that, in effect, they were to be rated as separate hereditaments and rating units rather than under the cumulo system. So, although many of the big boysthe operatorsknew of the change, the small and medium-sized businesses did not. They were not kept adequately informed. The VOA accepts that, in what I suspect is almost as mealy mouthed an apology as when Pontius Pilate said in another place that he might have got it wrong. In a limited fashion, the agency accepts that there was inadequate communication, which puts it mildly. There was no communication at all and there was gross negligence on the part of the VOA.

Robert Syms: This does not only affect large companies. Some quite small companies in the ports, such as those providing catering services and so on, are having their viability threatened by something that has come as a great surprise to them.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the businesses were given no notification, they were not able to plan for the increase in rates in the way that they ordinarily would. In the course of last year, those businesses were suddenly toldtwo years after the eventnot only that they would be subject to a significant increase in rates, but that those increases in rates would be backdated to 2005. That is why businesses in ports across the country are experiencing enormous increases in their rates, in both real terms and cash terms.

Julia Goldsworthy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that is was a double insult to those businesses when they found out not only that they were landed with a rates bill that they had not expected, but that it would be retrospectively applied? It was a double insult and not just a bolt out of the blue.

Bob Neill: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I know that we make common cause on this issue. A number of Labour Members have raised exactly the same point.
	A number of parliamentary answers have disclosed that the way in which the Government subsequently handled the issue does them no credit. The initial fault lay with the VOA, but the Government have failed to do anything to rectify it. We have a retrospective increase in taxation about which there was no communication, no consultation, no impact assessment, no assessment of the likely revenue to be raised and no assessment of the impact on the wider economy. There was no quantifying of the revenue or the economic impact, which was a clear breach of the Treasury's guidelines on the imposition of retrospective taxation. This is not just a complete foul-up in practical terms; it is thoroughly wrong in principle [ Interruption. ] I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is following me so far.

Frank Field: How are you going to vote?

Bob Neill: I see that the right hon. Gentleman, who likes to hear a tale unfold, is following me closely. I am sure that he is getting the drift.
	We are now finding that businesses are being hit by massive and unsustainable bills. It is worth giving a few examples. TTS Shipping Ltd. is a small firm, but well organiseda viable company under any normal circumstances. It pays its way; it is important to stress that in this context. It pays corporation tax, national insurance contributions and PAYE of 425,000 to 860,000 a year. These are not fly-by-night peoplethey are honest businesses paying their way and doing their bit. In 2007, TTS found that it had a retained profit of 40,000. It has now been saddled with a backdated liability for rates of more than 1 million, which it will not be able to payit is as simple as that.
	This regulation affects big people too; I am always interested in treating the big and the small equally, as hon. Members will appreciate. DFDS Tor Line, one of the major multinationals operating in the UK, has a backdated rates demand of 9.9 million. Even for a major operation, that is a lot of money. Its increase in annual liability is 3 million. Its managing director has written to indicate that, as a result, his main board is considering relocating the business outside the UK. That is very significant. The major international players, particularly on the Baltic and North sea routes, have the option, when transporting cars and other goods, to offload in Amsterdam or Rotterdam and then bring the goods on via road instead of shipping them in direct, so that British competitiveness in the ports is damaged.
	My final example is Freshney Cargo Services. Its bill has gone from 48,000 to more than 850,000massively more than its best-year-ever profit. Its retrospective liability is 24 million, for which it could never possibly plan. There is no way that these business can meet the unintended consequences of this foul-up by the VOA.

Ian Cawsey: The hon. Gentleman has said a lot about the retrospective element that is being applied to these companies. Does he accept, and want to place on the record, the fact that none of those companies is saying that they do not accept that they must pay business rates and will not do so in futurethat this is entirely about retrospection, and we cannot tell them to go back three years when they cannot go back to their customers and ask for the money?

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; he makes a powerful point. I know that he has taken an interest in this issue, and I hope to heavens that the Minister listens to him. It is not reasonable for companies to have to expect to go back in that way.

Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman got the figure on backdated payments for Freshney Cargo Services wrong: it is not 24 million, but 3.2 million. The managing director, Mr. Andy Dixon, has asked me to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Conservatives are going to vote against the measure.

Bob Neill: We will try terribly hard to put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. He is rightI left out the decimal point. I thought that it was 2.4 million, but it has gone up; now it is even more. [Hon. Members: How are you going to vote?] The more hon. Members want to ask questions that I am not going to answer yet, the longer this will go on. How they exercise themselves is entirely a matter for them.
	The genuinely serious question that arises is how to deal with this creation, which is certainly not the fault of the businesses that were unable to plan for it. This has been debated time and again. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) secured a Westminster Hall debate, which was well attended and where the case against the Government was comprehensively put. We prayed against the motion to enable us to have a debate in the Commons. The matter was recently debated in the other place, whereowing to its procedurea non-fatal motion of regret was passed by their lordships, giving them the opportunity to ventilate the inadequacy of the Government's response to the situation. Their responseI am sure that the Minister will explain it to us patiently, as he has beforeis to enable the liability to be spread over eight years. That is all well and good, but it does not solve the basic problem that still arises: the liability is still there and businesses will still have to pay a massive amount that they can ill afford. Moreover, because the liability accrues in one year, it will have to be carried on to their books as a liability in the first year, even though the payment is spread over a longer period.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and many of us who have harbours and ports in our constituencies have heard it first hand. Is the timing of the measure not doubly insensitive? The port in my constituency has many businesses importing timber and building materials for the building industry, which has been particularly hard hit. Those businesses are being asked to take a hit at a bad time in the economic cycle, when their balance sheets are pretty shot to ribbons, and it will push them absolutely over the edge in some cases.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Businesses are caught in an impossible dilemma. They cannot pay with the resources that they have, and with freight rates at an all-time low, their only recourse is to attempt to pass on costs elsewhere, which affects the other businesses that are in turn dependent on them. It is economic nonsense to embark on this course in the current economic situation.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an issue for the Minister, who now has the opportunity to move on the policy? Since the policy was ham-fistedly put together, the Government have converted to the view that they must do whatever it takes to sustain business through the recession. The regulations are quite incompatible with that policy.

Bob Neill: My right hon. Friend goes absolutely to the point, as he invariably does on these matters. The regulations fly in complete contradiction to the Government's policy, and one of the reasons why this debate is particularly timely is that it would enable the Government to do the same for the ports as they did for business rates increases yesterday, when the Chancellor said that he recognised that a 5 per cent. increase was unsustainable, and had to back off from that. Some ports are suffering from a 200 or 300 per cent. increase. If 5 per cent. was too much and had to be abandoned, the regulations should be abandoned, too, and we are giving the Minister the opportunity to recant, even at this late stage.
	I shall make a couple of points before I move on, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak. The Government had clear warning in advance about the issue of the liability being booked. In February, the Insolvency Service wrote to the Minister and said:
	The debt, like any other, would need to...be booked immediately. Depending on the company's overall financial strength, it may not have the assets to cover this additional liability.
	That is a modest statement; that is the least of it. The letter continues:
	In such circumstances, the company would be balance sheet insolvent.
	Legally, if the company had a reasonable prospect of paying, it could continue to trade, but that balance-sheet insolvency, as anyone with even the most modest involvement with practical business would know, increases its cost of borrowing. It would make it much harder for the company to raise finance, and if it does, it would be more expensive to do so. That is a significant indirect burden, alongside the liability itself. It also makes a company far less robust if it experiences further commercial difficulties or reverses during the recession. It makes the likelihood of that company going under far greater.
	The Select Committee on Treasury, which reviewed the matter in considerable detail, concluded that there was not just a likelihood but a probability that businesses will become insolvent in that regard, and it thought that there was a strong caseclear evidence was the phrase usedthat it would lead to the circumstances we described.

Derek Twigg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to build up to a crescendo, but we have waited patiently for the answer to a simple question. Given that he has already said on record that the Opposition are opposed in principle to the Government's position on matters that I have raised with the Minister, will he be voting against the regulations? And what is his party's policy?

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman has to hang on for only a little bit longer, because we are nearly there. I will tell him exactly what we propose because the Treasury Committee suggested a simple way forward. It said that we should retain the current valuations until the next revaluation in 2010. That would be a sensible way forward because it would enable the revaluation process, which businesses accept should take place, and which they accept will increase some liability for them, to be done with proper consultation and assessments so that they could plan their cash flow and future business plans. That would be the sensible, rational, joined-up way to do it, and we as a party have urged the Government to do that. The debate gives them an opportunity to do so, even though we do not oppose the eight-year payment period of itself.  [Interruption.] I must say that I am surprised that hon. Members are surprised about thatall they had to do was read the speech of my noble Friend Earl Attlee in the other place. It is in  Hansardhe made it clear that we are not opposed in principle to the eight-year period. However, for the reasons that I hope I have set out as clearly as I can, that period is not adequate to relieve the dilemma in which businesses have been placed, first by the failures of the Valuation Office Agency, and secondly by the inadequacy of the Government's response.
	This is the last chance for the Government to announce in this House that they will do the same thing for port businesses that they have done before for others. We will not vote against the regulations, but we have vented clearly our views about them as we regard them as very important. That would scarcely be a surprise to the Minister if he had read what we said in the House of Lords. I suspect that he might have done, actually, but we wanted him to be able to listen to the argument unfold in a chronological fashion.
	The debate will also give the many Members of all parties who are concerned about the impact of the regulations in their constituencies the chance to tell the Minister directly what is happening. I am afraid that many people, businesses and Members feel that they are meeting a blank wall when talking to the Government.

Austin Mitchell: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is telling us that we must wait for businesses on the docks to go insolvent and for jobs to be lost before the Opposition have the guts to do anything.

Bob Neill: With respect, I do not think that the Opposition can answer for the inadequacies of the response of the hon. Gentleman's party's Government. I know that he is ashamed of them, but there is no need for him to try to park the blame elsewhereas he well knows, it lies entirely on the Treasury Bench. I remind him what the Opposition pledged to do in the Westminster Hall debate. We did not just urge the Government to adopt the Treasury Committee's all-party recommendation, and advocate that as a policy. As the Minister well knows, we also indicated that if primary rather than secondary legislation were required for that purpose, as the Government contend, we would do everything necessary to facilitate the passage of that legislation. I happen to know that the Liberal Democrats take the same view, because they expressed it.
	At this moment, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill is before the other House. It touches on the powers of local authorities to assist businesses in their area. We have asked why on earth the Government do not table an amendment to that Bill. There is also a Finance Bill coming up in which they will have the opportunity to deal with rating measures. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby knows, it is not for us to control that. We have given the Government the best possible evidence that, if they wish to go down that route, we will do everything to assist them to assist businesses. With respect to him, I cannot say fairer than that. We are giving Ministers every possible opportunity, but I cannot make them see the reality of the situation. If they fail to do that, and if businesses go under, it will not be the hon. Gentleman's fault, because he has raised the issue, but it will certainly not be the fault of Conservative Members, because we, too, have consistently raised it. It is the Government who will have failed and sold short the businesses in the docks.

John Healey: I understand the concerns that have been raised and the pressure on the cash flows and margins of businesses that are affected by a backdated liability for business rates dating back to 2005. I also understand that some argue that we should go further than an unprecedented eight-year period in which to pay those backdated liabilities, but I want everyone to understand that voting down the regulations, which I laid before the House on 10 February, would leave the position of those businesses exactly as it was before we took action. In plain terms, let me give a warning: supporting the prayer that the Conservatives have tabled would mean that companies were legally liable to pay all the backdated business rates from now. It would also mean that councils were legally required to pursue and enforce those debts. That is at stake in the prayer that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and his leader have tabled.
	The debate has largely been about ports, but port businesses are not in a unique position. I therefore also want everyone to understand that the regulations that I tabled and the provision that the Government have made apply equally to businesses throughout England in all sectors and all areas, and not only to the ports-based businesses, which find themselves in the position of having significant and unexpected backdated business rates liabilities, incurred as a result of the Valuation Office Agency's separately listing them and assessing them for the first time in this rating list period.

Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the ports businesses are in an unacceptable position, which has been brought about by the action or inaction of the Valuation Office Agency, and that, although the Government's proposals are necessary, they are not sufficient?

John Healey: I shall explain shortly why I believe that the ports businesses are in not a unique, but a special position. There are some unacceptable pressures, created not least by the ports review, but I want to tackle the argument that Conservative Members and the ports lobby make that, somehow, the tax liabilities, which were legally established, should be waived. That is important. In the last financial year up to only 31 October, at least 800 companies, including some of the businesses in ports, were eligible for the payments scheme. That scope will be removed from them all if the regulations do not remain in place.
	Backdating ratings assessments is not new, but an established feature of the business rates system. It operated the list that we are considering not only from 2005 onwards, but from 2000 onwards and before that. In 2004-05 alone, in the previous ratings list period, more than 1,500 properties were put on the list for the first time, with significant backdated liabilities in precisely the same way as the ports, about which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friends are rightly concerned.
	However, the concentrated number of companies in that position as a result of the Valuation Office Agency's ports review is special. Let me make it clear that the ports review was not a change in the operation of the system or a change in the law. The VOA was doing its job and pursuing its legal duty to keep the ratings list up to date and accurate. That is why no impact assessment was undertaken beforehand. The ports review did not even constitute a change in the way in which the business rates system applied to businesses in ports.
	My hon. Friends understand, although the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not, that prescription was a methoda formulafor setting the rateable value of the ports operators, not the businesses in the ports. Before the ports review, 1,643 businesses in ports were separately listed and separately liable to pay business rates. In other words, three times as many ports-based businesses paid business rates on their account before the ports review than consequently paid them afterwards. In some cases, properties, which have been added and the addition of which is being contested, belong to businesses that already paid separately for other properties, sometimes in the same port.

Bob Neill: Given that it was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who extended the period of prescription until 2005 to enable the review to take place, has he ever had a proper explanation from the Valuation Office Agency of why it did not commence that review in a timely manner that was commensurate with the duty that he rightly said it has to have an accurate and up-to-date list, which it manifestly did not?

John Healey: There were three flaws in the way that the VOA conducted its ports review. First, it was clear before the Southampton container ports case was settled that a significant number of properties in ports should have been separately listed and paying business rates for some time, but were not doing so. Only after that was the legal position clear. I understand why that happened, but in hindsight it would have been better if the VOA had done some work before then. Secondly, the communication was not good enough, which is a point that the VOA's chief executive has conceded to Committees of this House. Thirdlythis, too, has been conceded by the VOAmore investigative work should have been done in conducting the ports review.
	Things have taken longer than they should have. That is partly why we are in this position now, rather than earlier in the list period. However, none of that changes the principle or the argument that I have just set out to the House, which is that the ports review did not change the way in which the system operates, the policy or the legal basis, and it did not even change the application of the business rates system to businesses based in the ports.

Several hon. Members: rose

John Healey: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), then to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and finally to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy). Then I will conclude my arguments, because I want to make some points that will allow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to see why in principle I disagree so fundamentally with what he has proposed.

Julian Brazier: The Minister said that there were many examples in previous valuations where businesses outside ports found themselves with large backdated bills. However, the crucial question is: how many such businesses have there been and in what other sectors have people who had no idea that they would be eligible for separate rates suddenly been faced with an enormous four-year backdated bill?

John Healey: In every case that I have cited, it may have been the case that the business concerned could not have anticipated or prepared for what happened. In the case of the ports review, however, I simply do not accept that, for all the ports businesses now affected, what happened came completely out of the blue. Some of those businesses have highly paid advisers and some were paying separate business rates on properties that they were already operating. It is not the case that what happened hit those businesses totally unawares. That may have been the case for some, but it cannot be the case for all.

Shona McIsaac: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the many, many meetings that he has had with Labour Members. I would be curious to know how many meetings he has had with Opposition Members. For businesses operating in ports, is not the crux of the matter the fact that they believe that they will be paying double? They are not arguing about whether they have that liability; rather, they are arguing about the fact that they have already paid an amount to the operators through the cumulo system to cover business rates. Those businesses feel that it is grossly unfair that they are paying double. All the measures in the regulations we are debating are fine, but they do not address that point.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is absolutely rightunsurprisingly, because she champions her businesses and her constituency very powerfully. There is a strong perceived unfairness about the situation in which those businesses now find themselves, and I understand that. They argue that they have made a contribution to their business rates through their tenancy fees or the cumulo system.
	The problem is that it is hard to pin that down, and there is no specific evidence in the contractual tenancy agreements. Where there is, the port operator would have to deal with that directly with the tenant. However, the terms of the tenancy arrangement and the fees that are paid are contractual matters and not, I am afraid, something that I or the Government can step in over. However, I have directly encouraged Associated British Ports and Peel Ports to take a sensible and practical approach to their tenants, because they have no interest in those tenants not being able to continue in business.

Julia Goldsworthy: Is it not the case that the problem for those businesses was not their future liabilities or any objection to the standardisation of the system, but the fact that they did not have the full facts available when they needed them most? That made it very difficult for them to predict the impact of the measure on their business. Is not that the nub of the problem? The measure has been retrospectively applied, and they did not have the information that they needed to prepare themselves.

John Healey: In a way, this is not unique in the way in which the business rates system operates. We do our best but, with the five-yearly revaluation, for example, businesses have to recalibrate their cash-flow forecasts and their business operations to deal with that.

Frank Field: My right hon. Friend is promising to take apart the Opposition's argument, and we shall obviously delight in that, but I would like him to address a point that has come up in a number of debates. The Government have moved their position by saying that people will be able to pay this liability over eight years, but Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern that, if the rate demand is sent out in a single billalbeit one that is to be paid over eight yearsit could result in some companies ceasing to be solvent to continue trading. Does my right hon. Friend have the power to instruct that those bills should not be sent out to a business as a single sum, and that instead, the first bill, for example, could be the first of eight equal parts? In that way, the total amount need not appear on the business's balance sheet, and possibly tip it into insolvency.

John Healey: These regulations and provisions are already in place, and 67 companies have agreed a schedule of payments that will allow them to spread their backdated liabilities over up to eight years. The insolvency question, for those companies, will involve a combination of having to book the liabilitythe outcome will, in part, depend on their existing assets and liabilitiesand of the judgment that the directors take on their ability to trade through the period and meet the liabilities when they become due. That is the advantage of being able to identify those liabilities and see when they will fall due, and to spread them so that they are due not as one hitas would happen without these regulationsbut in instalments over eight years. That is an unprecedented period; it gives businesses a generous amount of time to pay.

John Howell: rose

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman has been sitting through the debate and he is very keen to intervene. I shall give way to him, then I must make some progress.

John Howell: I thank the Minister for his generosity and characteristic humour in allowing me to intervene on him. Will he explain the differences in the estimates of the total backdated liabilities for, say, 2009-10? In the evidence and options paper, table 1 gives a figure of 112 million, but table 5 gives a figure of 341 million. The difference between the two figures has been brushed away as being due to a difference in assumptions, but we are never told what the assumptions are. Will the Minister now tell us?

John Healey: I am so glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because I was about to discuss the figures.
	I have placed in the Library of the House today a table of the latest figures relating to the impact of the ports review, broken down by port. The figures show the pre-review and post-review rateable values of the ports and of the businesses, and the number of businesses in each port. They also show that the review has had different impacts in different ports, and that it has had a different impact on the port operators and the port occupiers. The overall impact on the cumulative rateable value of ports in England has been to increase the rateable value from 201 million to 211 million.
	Within that cumulative impact, however, there have been two main changes. The first is a reduction in the port operators' rateable values. The second is an increase in the number of separately assessed properties. As a result, in England, the port operators' rateable value has been reduced by about 44 million annually, which therefore reduces rates liability. Across England, the rateable value of Associated British Ports alone has reduced from 41 million to 21 million as a result of the ports review. In Hull, the rateable value of the port is now one third of what it was before the review: it was 9 million; it is now 3 million. In Grimsby, that value less than half what it wasdown from 1.35 million to 500,000. In Liverpool, it is less than half, toofrom 16.5 million to 6.8 million.

Shona McIsaac: What about Immingham?

John Healey: As it happens, the rateable value of the port operator in Immingham has been cut by a thirdfrom 17.9 million to 11 million.

Bob Neill: rose

John Healey: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, the real impact has been on businesses, with 605 newly assessed properties having a rating assessment backdated to 1 April 2005. It is those newly assessed port occupiers, with properties at a rateable value of about 54 million that face the backdated liability of more than 70 million. Although there are some significant issues, problems and pressures faced by businesses in port when they get this unexpected and significant backdated liability, let me explain that the impact is not universal.
	Although some businesses may certainly be struggling, local authorities report that 25 millionin other words, a third of this backdated liabilityhas already been paid in full. One hundred and forty-six businessesin other words, one in four of those affected by backdated billshave already settled in full. A further one in seven of the remainderthe 67 properties and businesses I mentioned earlierhave now entered into the schedule of payments that is giving them real help through what is a tough period for them. That schedule has allowed them to spread the payments and manage the cash-flow consequences in a way that would be stopped dead in its tracks it would be blockedif the motion proposed by the Conservatives were to be passed.
	Let me turn to the central question of waiving the tax liability, because a number of different solutions have been proposed by the ports lobbyists, but they all add up to the same thing. The intended outcome in each case would be to waive what has now been establishedlegally establishedas a tax liability. Let me tackle that proposal directly. Despite the delays and problems in the ports review, I do not accept the principle that once it has been properly established that a business is legally liable to pay tax, it should simply be waived and the company let off. We do not do that in other circumstances; we do not do it with other business taxes.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) says that the Chancellor announced a waiving of the tax liability yesterday, but the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point. I have a precise argument, and if he bears with me, he will get it.
	Once facts and a tax liability are known, they simply cannot be disregarded. The Government do not do that with any business tax. If the Government accepted the principle of removing a backdated rates liability, it would require primary legislation. In other words, Ministers would have to ask Parliament to give selective advantage to a specific group of businesses.  [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will allow me

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but it would be helpful if the debate could continue without all the sedentary interruptions that have characterised it so far. They were started, I fear, by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who was a little short of his usual impeccable standard. In the short time we have left, it would be helpful if we heard one voice at a time.

John Healey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	If we were to accept this principle and Parliament gave us those powers, what would that mean? It would turn what some argue at the moment is a perceived and arguable disadvantage of a backdated business rateI have to say that many more businesses are now and have previously been affected by such backdatinginto an actual disadvantage to those who have paid their business rates in those years. In other words, we would create a certain state aid and a certain breach of fair competition and fair taxation principles.
	I have to tell the Conservative Front-Bench team that I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition has fallen for that line, tabled the motion and promised to waive the tax liability. It must be asked whose special interests will be next in line for a tax let-off under the Tories. It must also be asked who will be next to bang on the door of the shadow Chancellor, waving a tax bill and demanding special treatment.
	Let me ask the House a question. In supporting this motion, what is the shadow Chancellor saying to the other companiesmore than twice as many, including some in the portsthat have been paying their business rate bills when their neighbours and competitors would be let off this tax liability? What does he say to the companiesmany times the numberthat found themselves in the same position in previous years, but have accepted the system and paid what is legally due to the public purse? To do otherwise undermines the basis of the business rate system. As with other tax systems, everyone is assessed according to rules that are applied consistently and without favour, whether the administration of the system is good, bad or indifferent.

Austin Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Healey: I will finish making this point, if I may, but then I will give way to my hon. Friend, because he has been uncharacteristically patient up to now.
	The problems caused by the ports review in this concentrated group of companies do not alter the principle that 605 newly listed firms are being taxed and treated on the same basis as other firms both in and outside the ports.

Austin Mitchell: As we are throwing out all these rhetorical questions, will the Government answer a question? Why are businesses on the docks being asked to pay rates twiceonce through the cumulo, and once through the retrospective assessment?

John Healey: I have already dealt with that point. I have some sympathy with that perception of unfairness, but the argument must be taken up with the port operators with which the companies have the tenancy agreements and to which they pay the cumulo. I have asked about this consistently over the past nine months, and I have seen very little evidence of any contractual confirmation that the business rates are paid explicitly as part of the cumulo. Therein lies something of a problem for my hon. Friend and some of the companies in his constituency.

Ian Cawsey: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of a letter sent by Associated British Ports to companies in its ports, saying that it will have to increase the cumulo because of the increase in business rates. Surely that reveals an obvious connection. Surely it shows that the business rate is included in the cumulo.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right: I have seen the letter, because he made sure that I would see it. I am sure that the companies in his constituency will look at that information very closely, and will consult some of their professional advisers on where it places them in relation to ABP.
	I have a copy of the letter from ABP, which, as a result of the 2005 revaluation, told its occupiers
	it will inevitably mean that... some of the increase will... be passed on to our customers.
	As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), that is a matter that they must take up, rightfully and directly, with the port operators.

Stewart Jackson: rose

John Healey: I am coming to the end of my speech. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst had a fair crack of the whip.
	In the current economic circumstances, given the pressure on businesses across the board, what is clearand we understand it only too wellis that significant and unexpected backdated rates liabilities of this kind will create difficulties for many, although not all, businesses. That is why we have introduced a scheme to help all businesses, including some port occupiers, to meet such unexpected and significant backdated liabilities, and to pay over a period of eight years. That is an unprecedentedly long period.
	This is, in principle, a deferment of the tax liability, not a waiving or a removal of it. It is, in principle, precisely what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the House yesterday afternoon would apply to the increase in business rates that businesses face from the multiplier or the ending of the transitional relief: a deferring but not a removal of that tax liability. Businesses may benefit from up to around 600 million by the deferment announced by my right hon. Friend. It is consistent in principle and practice with his announcement in the pre-Budget report that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs would be flexible over the period in which other business taxescorporation tax, VAT and payroll taxeshad to be paid. Over 100,000 firms have now taken advantage of that. Almost 1.8 billion has been deferred to help them to manage their cash flow and business pressures during this difficult period.
	To summarise, we should expect businesses to pay the tax that is due, but in the current economic circumstances we must and can support businesses, especially where they have this unexpected or significant backdated liability. That is precisely what we are doing. We are doing it to an unprecedented extent by allowing scheduling over eight years for the firms that are affected. Businesses are already taking advantage of that support. The House would be wrong to take that away this afternoon.

Julia Goldsworthy: It struck me while listening to the previous debate that, although the subject was a serious one, it was entirely appropriate to hold it on April fool's day. Listening to this debate, I fear that it will be groundhog day, because we are hearing a repetition of powerful arguments, but the same response from Ministers that we heard in the other place and in previous Adjournment debates on the issue.
	I do not intend to speak for too long because I am aware that other hon. Members wish to raise issues relating to how the measure will impact on their constituencies. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) has been through the chronology and provided some examples of how businesses will be affected. I do not intend to repeat that, but I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats welcome the principle of simplifying the business rate system and moving to a standardised system. We think that there needs to be consistency across different businesses. The previous system was very complicated. It needed to be simplified, but the whole process has been nothing but a complete shambles. To people who are not deeply involved in the intricacies of the matter, the arguments will sound complex. My concern is that the Minister is hiding behind that complexity to defend the indefensible.

Stewart Jackson: I am sorry that the Minister did not feel compelled to allow me to intervene earlier, but does the hon. Lady agree that the principle and precedent of fiscal correction were established over the 10p tax rate, notwithstanding the liability that businesses have? Indeed, the Minister sidestepped the direct question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) put to him. A non-fatal amendment could be tabled to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill or a Finance Bill in the future.

Julia Goldsworthy: There will be opportunities to right this wrong, but it seems that the Minister is unwilling to do so. That is deeply depressing, to be frank. As I said, this is a complex issue, but for the people who are affected it is simple: they face a tax bill for previous years for which they did not know they were liable, so they have not been expecting it. The burden was imposed after the terms and conditions with the operator had been agreed and after payment had been made. For many businesses, the impact is so devastating that they may face insolvency.
	The Minister acknowledged that, which makes me wonder. The Minister's response is that these are well-established principles, we cannot waive backdated liabilities, and as all businesses are aware that the scheme can operate in that way they should plan for it. If so, why are we debating regulations now to try to mitigate some of the problems? Why were such measures not included in the original legislation? If the Government accept that this is part and parcel of the scheme, surely they should have made provision for it at the time. Businesses are being hit with this problem, which is impacting on jobs and on the local economy, at the very time when support is needed more than anything else.
	The Minister has openly admitted that these problems have predominantly been caused by the failure of the Valuation Office Agency to do its job properly. These proposals today essentially seek to mitigate the impact of those failings. They do not, however, fundamentally right the wrong. Businesses were unwitting victims of the Valuation Office Agency's complete incompetence.
	It is not only the Opposition parties that are attacking the policy. Suggestions to right the wrong were made by the Treasury Committee, which also clearly identified the causes of the problem. It identified low morale in the VOA, which had an impact on service delivery. It also identified poor communications with the businesses affected. While the operators might have been aware that the changes were in the offing, it was a bolt from the blue for many of the businesses affected.
	The Treasury Committee stated:
	Port businesses are facing backdated charges because the Valuation Office Agency failed to identify discrepancies in the ratings at the time of the 2005 revaluation. This mistake was compounded by the VOA's failure to communicate changes promptly and effectively with Port businesses.
	If the VOA had done its job when it should have done it, we would not be having this debate, because the retrospective taxes would not have been imposed. Businesses are upset that they are taking the hit for the failure of the Government agency.
	The Treasury Committee was also constructive in its recommendations. It asked the Government to take steps to ensure that payments already made to the port operators were taken into accounta point already made by hon. Members. However, the Minister refuses to accept that that is an issue, even though the Treasury Committee felt that it could be rectified. The Committee also suggested that the Government should
	take steps to mitigate further the difficult position faced by port businesses. Consideration should be given to the proposal to maintain the rateable values of premises in statutory docks and harbours at the levels published in the April 2005 rating lists until the new ratings list is published in April 2010.
	That is exactly what the Liberal Democrats have said. We have said that we will co-operate if primary legislation is required, but the Minister appears to have ruled that out. What consideration was given to that option? Was it explored or was it ruled out without due consideration?
	The information that the Department provided to the Treasury Committee was disappointing. On the issue of the contributions that port occupiers had already paid to the port operations, the Minister said again today that as far as the Government are concerned, the information is only ambiguous. However, those people who have spoken to businesses directly affected say that their understanding is that part of the terms and conditions included covering the business rates that operators were paying.
	I wish that the Minister had provided more information on what the Department had done to seek the information. It is clear that some hon. Members have provided the Department with the information, but I wonder whether there is more out there, if the will existed to try to find it.
	The Government continually emphasise their inability to waive this tax liability. For example, in the debate secured by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the Minister said:
	We cannot now act as if we do not have the full facts or as if they do not have a liability that is now clearly established in law. Therefore, it is not straightforward or possible simply to undo what has been done, or to hold off until 2010 when the next ratings list comes into effect.[ Official Report, 28 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 124WH.]
	The Minister spoke today about valuation and its retrospective nature. The point is that these businesses were not paying business rates, so they did not need to factor in retrospective elements. They were not clear what their liability would be in the future. If they did not know that they would be liable for business rates in the future, how were they supposed to plan for any retrospective liability? They did not have the full facts. They may have them now, but they did not have them at the time for which the Government seek to tax them.

Julian Brazier: Crucially, those facts were not available to those businesses when many of them negotiated long-term rental contracts. A firm at Immingham told me that it had negotiated a 30-year contract in 2005, on the basis of the old rating agreement.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The problem is not that the facts were not available when those long-term decisions were made; the facts did not exist at the time.
	As I was preparing for the debate, I was also dealing with some casework related to the tax credits system. The Minister said repeatedly that there is no ability to waive a tax liability for businesses, but as I was dealing with that casework, I wondered whether some principles could apply to both. When people apply for tax credits, it is made very clear to them that they must tell Revenue and Customs if their circumstances change; otherwise they will be liable for the recovery of overpayments. However, the VOA did not tell businesses that their taxation circumstances would change, let alone that they would be judged retrospectively. So, surely, the Government are responsible for the loss of their own income, because they failed to act in a timely way.
	The second principle with which tax credits are applied is that, if overpayments are caused by HMRC error, people are not required to pay. The delay in imposing this liability is entirely due to the VOA's incompetence, so I do not understand why similar principles cannot apply. It is understandable that businesses are completely bewildered. They are expected to deal with a completely appalling process, while Departments proceed as though nothing has happened and everything has gone completely smoothly.
	Finally, local authorities have been placed in an invidious position. They have a statutory duty to send out bills and collect revenue, but they have a responsibility to recognise and support their local economies. They play a key role in recognising the importance of ports to the local and national economy. They have a role in promoting the economic well-being of their areas, and many of them feel that these measures will undermine that economic well-being. The statutory instrument aims to make the burden more manageable for those businesses. It is half an apology, but it does not seek to right the wrongs that have resulted from this appalling process.
	It is entirely appropriate that we have had another opportunity to debate these measures, particularly on the Floor of the House. Like the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I do not want to vote against the regulations, because that would leave ports and businesses in an worse position, but the Government need to introduce proposals to try to right these terrible wrongs.

Austin Mitchell: I shall be brief, but I must express my incredible disappointment with Conservative Opposition's position. They are
	Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike.
	They are going around the country encouraging port operators to resist these payments, yet when they need to show the courage of their convictions, they remain silent. Here is a chance to put a spanner in the works; they will not take it.
	I must express my disappointment with the Government's position, which is one of impotence as a system of government. They are impotent, they tell us, to stop the retrospective increase, however unjust and disastrous it will be. They are impotent to do what we should do, which is to call off this exercise and do the assessment in 2010. They are also impotent to get back the money paid to ABP. That money is, in fact, the rateable contributions of the port operators. That is impotence turned into a chorus of castrati.
	On the substantive point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has been patient in listening to our arguments but inflexible in responding to them, it might well be a pistol to our own heads to vote to annul the regulations, but the Government have left us no alternative. I want to vote to annul them. I ask him what else we can do. It would force the businesses to pay now, which would be absolutely disastrous, but it would also force the Government to think again. If they are faced with businesses going bankrupt and rising unemployment in the ports, because of their inability to remove the retrospective charge, such action would force them to think again, and I hope that it would force them to take more sensible action than we have seen so far.

Robert Syms: Ports are vitally important, both for the people who work in them and for the community businesses that feed off them. The port of Poole is successful, but that takes very hard work. As we have heard, the problem with the proposal is that it is retrospective legislation that will undermine the viability of some businesses.
	Many businesses felt that they were already making a contribution through the agreements reached with their ports. I visited the port of Poole last Friday, and it is clear that it is being affected by the recession. Fewer passengers are using the ferry, and the number of haulage movements, both from the continent and from our side of the channel, has fallen by between 25 and 30 per cent. Over the next few years, businesses are going to find it very hard to carry this additional burden.
	It is a pity that the arguments made by hon. Members of all parties have not been taken on board. I know that the Government are trying to do what they can by spreading the payment over eight years, but I am not sure that that is the solution to a very difficult problem. Ports are very competitive places to do business. Some companies will move, jobs will be lost and the viability of some firms will be threatened. The measure will make nonsense of the tax system, if it kills the golden goose.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for praying against the order, as that has given us an opportunity to discuss these matters. I fear that the problem will recur again and again over the next three or four years, as companies struggle to pay their major liabilities.
	As I have said, Poole is a successful port, but that success comes only through hard work. This added burden will have a major impact on businesses both large and small that provide very important services for those who use the port.
	Because so many hon. Members want to speak in this debate, I do not intend to say much more than that. I therefore enter my protest against this proposal, on behalf of my constituents and the businesses operating out of Poole. They feel that they are being very hard done by, and I wish that more could be done to assist them in these very difficult times.

Louise Ellman: I have no doubt at all about the extent of the problems being experienced by many businesses in ports as a result of the imposition of large, backdated business rates. Those are bills that businesses could not have anticipated.
	The problems are exacerbated by the general economic situation, and my concern is that the proposal will pose a threat to businesses, jobs and regeneration. Certainly, it is easy to see that the port of Liverpool's spectacular success in recent times has been linked very closely to the regeneration of the city itself. I am extremely disturbed by the fact that the order, together with the economic situation, could threaten that regeneration.
	I support the findings of the Treasury Committee, which I believe should be recognised. I am very sorry that the Government do not feel able to implement the recommendations now, even though some recognition should be given to their attempts to do something about the situation. The proposals that we are considering this evening are not sufficient to deal with the problem, and the issue of liabilities on company balance sheets is a matter of very grave concern.
	While I believe that the House should recognise that the proposals are intended to assist port businesses, I know that they will not resolve the problem. For that reason, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to continue to give this very important matter their consideration. If it cannot be resolved today, I hope that it can be resolved in the future.

Julian Brazier: The Minister's speech was extraordinary. He spent the first half telling us, This is how other businesses up and down the country are handled, and businesses in ports should expect to be handled like every other business. However, towards the end of his speech he admitted that the arrangement had involved a large transfer from port rating companies, many of whom, he concedes, knew absolutely nothing about the matter, to the port owners, many of whom are in direct competition with their tenants. The Government have their own guidelines on retrospection, and the Minister must know that he has broken them. They were set out in  Hansard on 9 October 2008 at column 802W.
	I ask the House to envisage a warehouse in a port. Such a warehouse could be in one of at least four different situations, none of which have anything to do with its operations. First, it may be owned by the port owner, in which case it is exempt from the new arrangements. The second possibilityI have seen two warehouses side by side run on different basesis that it could be owned by an unfortunate tenant who has just been slapped with an enormous, four-year, backdated bill. Thirdly, it could be owned by a tenant in one of the portsthere are a number of themthat the Valuation Office Agency has managed to miss in its exercise. The fourth and final possibility is that the warehouse could be in a port where the owner got in clever lawyers early on, arranged a shared arrangement between more than one tenant, and so was able to avoid the problem. To suggest that the status quo has tidied matters up and brought the arrangements in ports in line with those in the rest of the country is just fantasy.
	The truth is that the arrangements are a muddle. They have been condemned by the Treasury Committee and in a non-fatal motion in another place. In the real world, the arrangements are progressively destroying large numbers of small businesses: Thomas Nichols Brown has gone bust in Liverpool; DFDS, a huge Danish shipping company, made 71 people redundant in January; Stanton Grove on the Mersey has a huge bill of more than 2 million; and Brittany Ferries in Plymouth, Poolethe constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms)and Portsmouth faces a bill of 500,000. A whole string of organisations, some of which could afford to pay the bills, have simply said that they will pull out of the UK. To add insult to injury, in contradiction to the original announcement, the Minister's office has confirmed that if a tenant goes bust and that tenant's property reverts to the port owner, the port owner will not be faced with an empty property rates bill; the property will revert back to the original arrangement. How fair is that?
	There are other people who want to speak, so I shall end with one last example. David Johnson of RMS Group Holdings Ltda man who deserves to be praised for the vigorous way in which he has spoken up time and again for his company and for other people like himsays that his company faces a 1,700 per cent. rate increase as well as four years' backdating. That is no way to run a tax system, and no way to run a country.

Ian Cawsey: I, too, will be brief, given the hour and the amount of time left in the debate. I want to concentrate on one aspect of the issue. I was profoundly depressed not only by today's debate, but by the amount of time that we have spent going round the same track again and again. The matter was first raised with me last year by Peter Aarinson, who runs Danbrit Shipping in Goole, in my constituency. I rang my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government in his constituency the very same day, which is when this all began.
	We are all told things by constituents from time to time, and we know that not everything is as it appears when we are first told it. When I was first told about the situation, my reaction was that either there was more to the matter than I was being told, or the situation was so obviously wrong that something would be done to correct it. It did not enter my naive little head last year that months later, it would all be confirmed, and not enough would be done to resolve the situation.
	I want to make a point about double taxation, because however we wrap it up, that is at the nub of the argument. The people concerned have been paying business rates to their port operators, and the letter that I intervened about earlier in the debate showed that clearly. One cannot go back to a company later and say, You've got to pay again, because we've given the money back to the people from whom we took it in the first place.
	One or two of us had a meeting this morning with some Treasury officials to discuss the order, which I said is like lobbing a grenade into a whole area of business, running away and waiting to see what happens. Businesses cannot be left in that position. I have met ABP, which is the port operator for my area. It has no intention of giving back any of the money. It says that although it is true that in Goole, my constituency, they have received a lot of money back, the liability of ABP across the country has gone up, so it does not see that it has gained. That may be true in certain ports, such as the one in my constituency, but the money is not going to flow back.
	If the Minister and officials think the way to resolve the matter is to say, It's a private matter which companies will have to sort out themselves, that is not good enough. They should be doing something to bring the parties together and thrash it out. To me, it would be much simpler for the Government to say that the liability will start in 2010, in which case everybody would know where they are. Businesses could take that into account in their business plans and then move on to have successful and progressive businesses for the future.
	In his remarks to the House my right hon. Friend the Minister made great play of the fact that he is offering assistance, which we appreciate. He went on to say that that is unprecedented, which we appreciate as well. He then said that there is no other way to deal with taxation. Well, if we are going to do something unprecedented, we might as well do the correct bit of unprecedented work. That means taking away the liability for now, accepting that those businesses have paid and setting their liability for future business years.
	I shall finish on this point, as others wish to speak. Just before I came in for the debate, I was in a meeting with other Ministers about another issue. We were discussing copyright term extension, which is an issue for another daythe subject is complex and the legalities are difficult. At the end of that meeting, a Minister said to me, You know, Ian, it's not just about legality. It's about morality. That could be applied to the present debate. Those businesses have been let down terribly by the system. It is a great source of despair to me that it is my Government who have done that, but they have, and now they are obliged to put it right.

John Howell: I shall make three brief points. First, I find it almost unbelievable that the attitude of the Government to the entire issue is that something in which they have had no part has been done to them and that they have no control over the Valuation Office Agency. That cuts no ice with companies in ports. As a spokesman for one of them, Peel Ports, told the  Liverpool Daily Post:
	This is a government ratings revaluation which affects all the ports.
	My second point is on the impact assessment. I heard what the Minister said about why there was no impact assessment, but under pressure from the Opposition, he has, as the information that he gave us in the course of the debate revealed, brought out some of the points that we would expect to see in an impact assessment. The trouble is that bringing them out in this way does not provide the context to enable us to judge them, so I am still left with questions. How many companies does he estimate will go insolvent as a result of the measure? Does he have an estimate of how many are likely to move out of the UK, which is a real possibility? As the Humber Dock Rating Group spokesman said, making a terrible pun:
	There is a question now among the shipping industry whether they should re-sink their investments in ports in the UK, or whether they should look to move as much of their business as they can off-shore.
	Thirdly, the impact on unemployment is relevant. Returning to the intervention that the Minister was kind enough to let me make, I still find it difficult to believe that there is a threefold difference in the estimate of the liabilities between one part of the evidence base and the other. I understand what the Minister has said about what subsequently happened, but at the time the evidence was put together, there was still that wide gap. It was put down to assumptions. Those should have been, and probably were, known, and we should have been told. That all smacks of the Health Committee's criticism that the Government simply rush into these things without proper ideas of success criteria, without any design of policy and without any assessment of the impact.

Shona McIsaac: It is with sadness and regret that I rise to speak in this debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), for many months I have been devoting an enormous amount of time to trying to find a solution to this issue. We have had a great many meetings with the Minister for Local Government and other Ministers. This morning, we had an eleventh-hour meeting with the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. We put our views to her frankly and bluntly, and she said that she would consult colleagues about the ongoing issue to see whether something further could be done after the passing of this motion tonight.
	Nobody is denying that allowing the rates to be spread over an eight-year period will help some people. However, that is not the entire solution. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government will also agree to meet colleagues to see whether anything further can be done. In virtually every meeting that we have had with Ministers, and with the Prime Minister, everybody seems to say that it is another Department's responsibility. When we meet Treasury Ministers, they say, Sorryit is the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government,; when we go to Ministers from that Department, they tell us that we have to go back to the Treasury. I would like all Ministers with responsibility for the issue to get into one room and meet all Members whose constituents are affected.
	The crux of the matter is the double payment and the double taxation. Yes, we have heard all about how we got here and about the Valuation Office Agency and, yes, we have this motion tonight. However, nobody has yet come up with a good way forward in respect of the double taxation. The Minister has kept saying that companies in the ports had been paying and that it would not be fair on the companies that had been paying if others were treated differently, but the fact is that the others were payingthey were paying through the money that they were giving the operators. Associated British Ports is the operator at the port of Immingham in my constituency. The companies there firmly believe that they have paid their business rates directly to ABP throughout the entire period. We have seen the letters demonstrating that the money that they paid ABP included business rates.
	The contract may not have been beautifully legally put together, but let us face it, we are dealing with dockers, not the be-wigged and be-gowned folk down in Lincoln's Inn. Yes, the agreements can be somewhat rough around the edges, but the companies had the verbal agreements and the letters show that when they were paying that money to ABP, business rates were included. The companies have already paid, and that is why they feel that it is so unfair that they are being asked to pay again.
	Why are we fighting in the Chamber tonight? It is because the outcome of this matter will be job losses. I am already seeing them in the port of Immingham and in other companies as well. As has been mentioned tonight, DFDS Tor Line has issued redundancy notices. More will come. I have discussed the issue with many companies; they say that the only way in which they can reduce overheads is to lay people off and put people out of work.
	The type of areas that we representaround Goole, Immingham and Grimsby, for exampleare isolated, discrete communities. Any job losses have a disproportionate impact on them, because people do not have a hinterland that enables them to travel to find any other work. This will have a devastating effect on our communities, and for that reason I hope that my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench will see whether something else can be done. It has been suggested tonightI am in agreement with thisthat we should start again in 2010. Yes, that will require primary legislation, but what the hell are we here for if not to legislate?
	The Opposition parties have said that they will give any legislation on this subject that is brought forward a fair wind, so I hope that for the sake of jobs in our communities my right hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider this issue.

Bob Neill: I shall be brief, to give the Minister a little time. This has been a lively and well-informed debate, albeit a short one, and I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part.
	I earnestly hope that the Minister will listen to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). The whole purpose of this debate is to give the Government time to think again. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has not tempted us to press the button for the nuclear optionI understand, rhetorically, why he suggested it, but if I were a business caught up in the middle of the nuclear explosion I would not necessarily want that to be the outcome.
	There is an opportunity, which I shall restate for the final time for the Minister. We will do everything that we can to assist any primary legislation that can put right this wrong. If Parliament is not here to legislate, what is it here for? If Parliament is not here to right an injustice, what is it here for?
	The Prime Minister, we are informed, knows about this. It will seem remarkably selective if, rather than saving the ports in this country, the Prime Minister decides that he is too busy saving some other global expedition. I do not mean that churlishly. I hope that the Prime Minister really does know about this matter. If he takes on board the points that have been made, he will go to the people who are the real blockage in the Treasury and will ensure that leeway is given so that the Minister can come back with a sensible solution. If that is done, we will do everything to assist. If it is not done, the buck has to stop at the very top.

John Healey: With the leave of the House, I want to respond in brief to some points. I fear that by being blunt I might also disappoint.
	May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that it is not the case that Ministers have somehow passed responsibility from post to post. At each stage, I have accepted responsibility for the position that we are in. I have accepted responsibility for the measures that we have proposed to take. I have not ducked the argumentswhether that was in meetings with businesses in Hull, when I gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury, in meetings with my hon. Friend or in debates in this House. I have had more discussions on this matter than on any other subject in recent months.
	Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) that we have acted, and have done so in an unprecedented way. We are prepared to defer the backdated liabilities for an unprecedented period of eight years to allow payments to be spread. If my hon. Friend feels that we are going around the same course and we are hearing the same arguments, that is the case. We are doing that because, to put it bluntly, we have heard the arguments and listened carefully to them, but we have not accepted them. We have not accepted that the port businesses are in a unique positionhe is obviously as concerned about their position as we areor that they are a unique case. We have accepted that they have problems and that they are under pressure, particularly when the economic downturn is putting pressure on all businesses. That is why we have been prepared to give this help in order to help them manage their way through.
	The impact of the ports review, as I have said, has not been universal. Despite the individual cases that Members cited, a third of the backdated liabilities in tax have already been paid in full. One in four of the businesses affected in the same way have settled their bills. A significant number of the remainder are taking advantage of the payment scheme that we have put in place, which the Conservative motion would remove at a stroke. That scheme gives a flexibility to pay. It defers the liability and does not remove it. It is entirely consistent with what we have been prepared to do on other business taxes because, as we have said, we are prepared to take action where we can to help businesses manage their way through this difficult recession. That includes the businesses in the ports hit by these significant and unexpected backdated business rate tax bills.
	 Question put.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 3, Noes 289.

Question accordingly negatived.

Maria Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am raising a point of order about the response that the Prime Minister gave today about the Christie hospital and its funds that are frozen as a result of the Icelandic banking crisis. The Prime Minister stated that the bank involved was not regulated by the Financial Services Authority, and in making that statement he may have been unintentionally in error. Both the Christie hospital and Naomi House, which is a hospice that provides services to children in my constituency, have funds with Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander, which is a UK-incorporated subsidiary and therefore authorised and regulated by the FSA in the same way as any other British bank. Both the Christie hospital and Naomi House have many millions of pounds frozen with that bank and they are rightly concerned that the Prime Minister does not have a better grasp of the situation. I hope that you can bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, perhaps through a statement.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot bring that to the attention of the Prime Minister, but the hon. Lady has been able to do so by putting the matter on the record.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that the last Division, which was totally under the control of the Government, took 20 minutes. Do you think that that had anything to do with the fact that I wish to speak on motion 7 on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the Government had the hon. Gentleman in mind.

Business without Debate

Business Of The house

Motion made,
	That, at the sitting on Tuesday 21 April, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) the Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means shall be entered upon (whether before, at or after 7.00 pm), and may then be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, after which the Speaker shall interrupt the business. ( Mr. Ian Austin .)

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS

Rail Services (Lockerbie)

David Mundell: On 11 November 2008, I had the opportunity to hold an Adjournment debate, in which I said that although Lockerbie station is situated in Scotland, the train services at that station are regulated by the Department for Transport, because they are all cross-border services. The basic message from the Department in response to that debate was that there was insufficient demand for additional services at that station and that the Department was not willing to look at the timetable, which in December 2008 saw a reduction in services between Lockerbie and Glasgow and Edinburgh of some 40 per cent. Since that time, some 2,300 people have signed a petition, which I was able to hand to the Secretary of State for Transport today. This evening I am presenting a similar petition to the House.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of users of Lockerbie Station and others,
	Declares the anger of users of Lockerbie Station at the 40 per cent. cut in the number of rail services between Lockerbie and Glasgow or Edinburgh in the new time-table operational from December 2008; regrets the failure to provide the much promised early morning direct service to Edinburgh in that timetable; and notes the increased need to use connecting trains when travelling to or from the South.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Secretary of State for Transport to, firstly, reconsider the recent cuts to the number of services serving Lockerbie and, secondly, to instigate the introduction of a 'balanced' timetable designed to meet the needs of Lockerbie station users, and specifically to allow commuters to travel from Lockerbie to and from Glasgow and Edinburgh at times suitable for the start and end of the normal working day and to allow return from Edinburgh and Glasgow late in the evening so that people in the South of Scotland can take advantage of evening entertainment in these cities.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000343]

Armed Forces (Recruitment)

David Drew: I am delighted to present a petition on behalf of Quaker Peace and Social Witness. It is in the names of Michael Bartlet and Debbie Taylor and 1,500 other signatories. It seeks to raise the age at which young people may enter the armed forces.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of people of this country,
	Declares that the Petitioners welcome proposals to raise the school leaving age to eighteen; and further declares their regret that young people joining the armed forces at the age of sixteen currently commit themselves to a period of four years service beyond their eighteenth birthday.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward legislation to delay enlistment of recruits into the armed forces until after their eighteenth birthday.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000344]

Health and Safety Executive (London Headquarters)

Simon Hughes: I am privileged to be the Member of Parliament for the headquarters of the Health and Safety Executive in Rose Court on Southwark Bridge road. I present a petition signed by James Davies, who lives in Greater London, and supported by more than 1,900 people. It has been organised by the Public and Commercial Services Union's protect public services unit, and it has been signed by people from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of England who work in many branches of the public services, many Departments of State, many Ministries and many agencies. They include people working as public servants in this building.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the Public and Commercial Services Union,
	Declares that the Petitioners are seriously concerned about the closure of the Health and Safety Executive's London Headquarters; further declares that the business case for the single Headquarters assumed that 40 per cent. would move to Liverpool; notes that so far only 12 staff (4 per cent.) have expressed an interest in moving; and further notes that this means that 310 people will lose their jobs, with HSE losing the competence, knowledge and know-how of a significant portion of their workforce.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to reconsider the closure of the Health and Safety Executive's London Headquarters.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000346]

Public Libraries (Wirral)

Ben Chapman: I have the greatest concern about Wirral council's regrettable decision to close 11 libraries and potentially to close 22 halls, civic centres and other valued community assets. One library that could close as early as this Saturday, 4 April, is that in Higher Bebington. This petition has been signed by some 500 residents of Higher Bebington and others.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Higher Bebington, and others,
	Declares that the decision by Wirral's Council to close Higher Bebington Library does not take into account the high regard in which it is valued by local residents and users; further declares that there was strong representation for the retention of Higher Bebington Library during Wirral's consultation period over its Strategic Asset Review; notes that Higher Bebington would benefit from the continued existence of a library facility in the sense that it serves just that community; and further notes that the concept of community transfer (which, according to Wirral Council, could be vigorously pursued after the closure of Higher Bebington Library) has not been sufficiently thought through.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Wirral Council to reconsider its decision to close Higher Bebington Library.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000345]

Nick Cousins

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mr. Ian Austin.)

Paul Goodman: I am grateful to have secured this debate today. I want to tell part of the story of my constituent, Nick Cousins, because that will allow me to ask how a teacher who has never been found guilty by a court is now unlikely to be able to return to his vocation because, in effect, of the intervention of the Government and their agencies. The story raises serious questions about the balancein our schools, in the education system as a whole, in government and in our popular culturebetween the protection of pupils and justice for teachers, and about the consequences for those schools, that system and our education and popular culture if that balance goes awry. It also raises profound questions of justice and equity.
	Let me now begin. In 1998, Mr. Cousins was a senior housemaster at Dulwich college in London. A pupil made an allegation of inappropriate behaviour against him. There followed an internal inquiry in which Mr. Cousins was cleared. In 2001, he became deputy headmaster of the Royal Grammar schoolor RGS, as it is sometimes knownin my Wycombe constituency. In 2004, another Dulwich college pupil made allegations that Mr. Cousins had indecently assaulted him during the late 1990s. Later, a third boy, a contemporary of the other two pupils, made similar allegations. In July 2004, Mr. Cousins was arrested. In April 2005, he was charged with indecent assault; in March 2006 he went on trial.
	Obviously, that series of events created difficulties for the school, which understandably suspended Mr. Cousins from his duties. I should say at this point that nothing I say this evening is meant to be in any way a criticism of the school, which acted in crucial respects, as we shall see, on the advice of the authorities.
	At the trial, Mr. Cousins was acquitted on three counts and the jury did not reach a decision on the other two. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to order a retrial, but instead left the other two counts on file. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is aware of Mr. Cousins' case, has pointed out that this is a standard method of disposal of counts on which juries are unable to agree verdicts, and is entirely neutral in its implications.
	Following the trial, the RGS decided to set up its own internal inquiry in relation to the suitability of Mr. Cousins to work with children. I should say at this point that nothing I say this evening takes a view on his suitability to work in that regard. Rather, as I say, my central purpose is to ask whether he has been treated fairly by the Government and their agencies.
	In my view, the RGS was justified in setting up its inquiry. There are evidently circumstances in which there are grounds for proceeding against people, even if they are cleared in court, especially perhaps where child protection is concerned. The school asked Buckinghamshire county council for advice, which is understandable, and the council recommended that the school use an independent investigatoragain understandable. The council also recommended who that investigator should be. His report turned out to be controversial. The investigator allegedly met Mr. Cousins and the RGS headmaster only briefly and based his report mainly on the police's evidence in relation to the Dulwich college charges, which the House will remember were not upheld by a court. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who saw the report, raised concerns at the time about its impartiality.
	Following the inquiry and report, the RGS decided to reinstate Mr. Cousins on the balance of probabilities. It is perhaps not surprising that both prior to the inquiry and following it, the RGS, backed by the council, approached Mr. Cousins's union representative to discuss a compromise agreement, whereby Mr. Cousins would resign in return for a compensation payment. Mr. Cousins rejected both offers since he wished to return to work at the school.
	In mid-August 2006, Mr. Cousins was told by the school that he would have to complete a new enhanced Criminal Records Bureau checkapparently, on the advice of Buckinghamshire county council. By the beginning of September, the CRB check had not arrived. Mr. Cousins was then told at a meeting with the headmaster, which was also attended by a representative from Buckinghamshire county council, that he would therefore be unable to return to work at the beginning of the approaching autumn term. Consequently, when the new term began later that month, Mr. Cousins worked from home.
	At the end of September, he was allowed to return to work at the school, subject to the restriction that he should not seek contact with the boys without the headmaster's permission. He then had to wait a further five monthsuntil February 2007to receive the results of the enhanced CRB disclosure. According to Mr. Cousins, this disclosure contained no new information, but it did apparently contain no fewer than 14 factual errors in the so-called soft box, which is where chief police officers can add additional relevant information at their discretion. The soft box also included allegations that had not been upheld in court and that had obviously been inserted there by the Metropolitan police. The House will remember that Dulwich college, the site of the original accusations against Mr. Cousins, falls within the Metropolitan police area. On that basis, Buckinghamshire county council was unable to issue a certificate clearing Mr. Cousins to return to work, in an unrestricted way, at the RGS.
	Needless to say, Mr. Cousins challenged the terms of the disclosure. At the beginning of June he met Metropolitan police officers, and, following further correspondence, a new disclosure was agreed. Later in June, it arrived. Mr. Cousins claimed that it was still inaccurate in two significant respects, and that the agreed form of words had not been used. Consequently, the Criminal Records Bureau referred the matter to the information commissioners. I do not know whether the commissioners have published a view.
	I now return to events at the RGS, where, as the House will remember, Mr. Cousins had returned to work pending receipt of a certificate from the county council, subject to the restriction that he should not seek contact with the boys without the headmaster's permission. At this point, we have a new entrant to the story. On 14 May 2007, the then Department for Education and Skills wrote to Mr. Cousins stating that it had come to the Department's noticemore than a year after the trialthat he had been charged and tried with respect to certain allegations. The letter announced that the DFES was to launch its own investigation of Mr. Cousins under section 142 of the Education Act 2002.
	Nearly two years later, neither Mr. Cousins nor I, his Member of Parliament, have been able to obtain any explanation from what is now the Department for Children, Schools and Families of why it became involved. I understand that neither Buckinghamshire county council nor the Met referred the case to the DFES, as it then was. Mr. Cousins's solicitor has claimed that the DCSF received a newspaper cutting about the case. I shall return to that later.
	On 18 May, four days after Mr. Cousins received the letter from the then DFES, he was handed a letter by the headmaster of the RGS claiming that he had broken the restrictions imposed on him following his return to school. On 12 June, Mr. Cousins was asked to leave the school. The RGS then appointed another investigator to write a report regarding Mr. Cousins's alleged infringements of the restrictions imposed on him on his return to the school. According to Mr. Cousins, the investigator was being advised by Buckinghamshire county council.
	At the end of August 2007, Mr. Cousins was dismissed at a disciplinary hearing. I believe that the dismissal was upheld at an appeal at the beginning of November 2007, with the result that Mr. Cousins took his case to the employment tribunal. This part of the story finally ends in October 2008, when he reached a settlement with the RGS and the council. In a statement agreed by all three parties, the governors of the RGS acknowledged that Mr. Cousins had been unfairly dismissed, and the council apologised for not providing him with the level of support that he had expected in relation to his dismissal. The council also agreed to review the way in which the whole matter had been handled, and to learn lessons for the future. Mr. Cousins, for his part, acknowledged that the school had acted on advice and therefore in good faith.
	The story of Mr. Cousins does not end with that agreement, however. The House will remember that in May 2007, more than a year after the trial, the then DFES wrote to him to say that it would launch its own investigation of his suitability to teach. However, it was not until January 2008 that he was interviewed by a psychologist from the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which provides consultancy services for the DCSF. During the interview, it apparently emerged that she did not have any of the defence papers relating to the case, as they had been mislaid by the foundation. In the summer of 2008more than a year after the Department had first written to him Mr. Cousins finally received a copy of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation report. According to him, the psychologist stated in the report:
	I would not consider Mr Cousins to represent a risk of harm to children and young persons in education or other settings.
	By the beginning of this year, however, the DCSF had still not issued any recommendation with regard to Mr. Cousins, despite having initiated the investigation more than 18 months earlier. When Mr. Cousins finally managed to speak to an official in the Department at the end of January 2009, he was informed that his case had been transferred to another worker, and that the Department was still working through its internal reviews before a recommendation was made to the Secretary of State. I wrote to the DCSF at the beginning of February to ask why the inquiry was taking so long.
	At the beginning of March, I received a letter from the Department saying that
	It is not possible to say precisely how long it may take to conclude any given case, because the circumstances of each case vary. The length of time it takes to reach a decision very often depends on how long it takes for other agencies or bodies to provide relevant information and evidence. However, we aim to conclude a case as soon as possible after receiving all the relevant information.
	On 10 March, nearly three years after Mr. Cousins was acquitted, the head of the children's safeguarding unit at DCSF wrote to Mr. Cousins to inform him that the Secretary of State had decided not to bar or to restrict his employment. The letter, however, had a twist in the tail:
	Although it has been decided, on this occasion, not to make a direction under section 142 of the education Act 2002 on the grounds of your misconduct, you are warned that your behaviour has caused great concern.
	The letter goes on to refer to
	any further misconduct on your part.
	The House will remember that the governors of the RGS agreed that Mr. Cousins had been unfairly dismissed in 2007 and that he has never been found guilty in court, so to what misconduct is the Department referring?
	Furthermore, Mr. Cousins alleges that it is clear from the letter that the DCSF has not sent him copies of all the documentation that it has considered, despite having promised to do so. That means that he has not had a chance to comment on all the allegations made against him. Not surprisingly, my constituent has now written to the Department about both those points.
	To sum up this section of my speech, we have a teacher who has never been found guilty in court, who has been unfairly dismissed, who has apparently been the subject of inaccurate police claims, some of which have been dismissed in court, who has been investigated by the DCSF on a basis that that Department is unwilling to disclose either to him or to his Member of Parliament, and who the Department now judges to be guilty of misconduct on a basis that it has yet to disclose and may be unwilling to disclose, despite the fact that Mr. Cousins has never been found guilty in court but has been found to be unfairly dismissed. All this while, Mr. Cousins has endured delay, dismissal, disruption to his standard of living and quality of life, strain on his family life, public scandal and above all separation from the vocation to which he dedicated much of his working life. He would be entitled to feel that he has effectively been put on trial twice: once by a judge and jury, who did not find him guilty, and once by the Government and the authorities, who in effect did, but Government and the authorities are not, as the old saying has it, 12 men good and true. If the DCSF has evidence against my constituent, surely that must be produced. If it does not, the House and the world can only conclude that the handling of the case reeks of injustice.
	I now want to ask the Minister some questions. I would be grateful if she indicated either now or during her response to the debate that she will write to me in response to any questions that she does not this evening have time to answer. I would be grateful if, rather than simply reading the brief, she would at least answer this evening the questions that pertain directly to Mr. Cousins.
	What is the nature of the misconduct referred to in the DCSF's letter of 10 March, bearing in mind that Mr. Cousins has never been found guilty in court but has been found to have been unfairly dismissed? Was he shown all the documentation relating to his case? If not, why not, and will he now be shown it? More broadly, in what circumstances where a teacher is acquitted will the DCSF launch its own subsequent investigation? What are the procedures for referring such cases for investigation, and who is entitled to make these referrals? Assuming that the Department does decide to launch its own investigation, how does it appoint the investigator and how does it ensure that the investigator is both qualified and impartial? What checks has the Department introduced to ensure that any investigator has papers relating to both sides of the case? In this instance, although Mr Cousins did not dispute the findings of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, were a teacher to do so, what procedures would enable that teacher to appeal against the findings of a report? Given the delay, what guidelines has the Department issued on the speed with which it will conclude any investigation that it launches? Its latest letter to me said that
	The length of time it takes to reach a decision...depends on how long it takes for other agencies... to provide relevant information and evidence.
	I now turn to the role of the Metropolitan Police. I would be grateful if the Minister could pass on the following questions to her counterparts in other Departments if she is not in a position to answer them herself. First, as a chief police officer can add other relevant information in the so-called soft box of a CRB form, how is relevant information defined, and what guidelines cover its use?
	According to a letter I received from the Met in October 2007, the principles that can be extracted from the case law relating to CRB disclosures are as follows:
	The Chief Officer is not required to carry out further police investigations and/or enquiries into the accuracy or nature of the information.
	Do the Government believe that it is right that chief police officers are not required to make inquiries or carry out investigations into the accuracy or nature of such information? In how many and what percentage of cases is it conceded that a CRB disclosure is inaccurate, as the CRB conceded in the case of Mr. Cousins in relation to its first disclosure? What is the Met's policy on the speed with which CRB checks should be completed? Are there recommended response times? If so, were they adhered to in this instance, and if not why not?
	I am pleased to have had the opportunity to tell the House part of the story of the life of my constituent, Nick Cousins. I am saddened to have had to ask how he has been put on trial twiceonce by a judge and jury, who did not find him guilty, and once by Government and authorities, who in effect did, without any new evidence of which I am aware.
	I know that in these times it is not done to quote poetry in the Chamberdear me, that would be rather old-fashioned. None the less, I am mindful as I speak this evening of the words of Auden:
	Acts of injustice done,
	Between the setting and the rising sun,
	In history lie like bones, each one.
	Finally, I close by reflecting on what this story suggests not just for one teacher, but for all teachers, all schools, our education system as a whole, and our educational and popular culture. Not long ago, there was an imbalance between the protection of children and the autonomy of teachers. The former was compromised at the expense of the latter. That imbalance had to be addressed. By and large, I think that it has been. The protection of children should be non-negotiable.
	Ministers, the DCSF, local authorities, Parliament, the courts, schools, teachers and governors have no easy task in deciding where the balance lies. As I said earlier, there are circumstances in which there are grounds for proceeding against people even if they have been cleared in court, especially, perhaps, when child protection is concerned. None the less, there are, as I say, serious questions about whether this balance is now right.
	Like other Members, I visit schools in my constituency. I am acutely aware that the life of teachers is modern Britain is not always easy. Once, teachers were repositories of knowledge. Like policemen, clergymen, councillors and even, dare I say it, Members of Parliament, they had authority, and a certain status. Now, they are often surrogate parents in what can be, for children, a world made even more bewildering and confusing than it already is by the way in which we live nowsometimes there is a lot of choice, but not always a lot of love.
	Teachers no longer have the authority that they automatically possessed a generation ago. Nor does our culture always give them the respect and indeed the reverence to which they are entitled as the passers-on of the light of learning to the next generation. Their options, faced with children who are sometimes difficult at best and violent at worst, are limited. I note that the Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee has said that it plans to hold an inquiry into the handling of allegations against teachers.
	In these circumstances, it is surely vital to ensure that teachers, no less than children, are treated fairly by Government and by the authorities. It is for this wider reason, as well as for the sake of justice and equity, that I bring before the House this evening the case of my constituent, Nick Cousins.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on securing this debate. Our first duty in government and as a society is to do all we can to keep children safe, and I know that duty is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is why we have been strengthening the system for preventing unsuitable people from gaining access to children through their work, and it is why we have established the new vetting and barring system and the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases in the House, particularly given the obvious sensitivities for all concerned, but I would be more than happy to commit the Department to write to him in confidence to address some of the procedural issues raised by this case if that would be of help and if his constituent gave permission. The remarks that I make tonight will be about the processes in general as regards the DCSF and not about the process in this case.

Paul Goodman: Can the Minister confirm whether that letter would include what I described as the whole misconduct question if my constituent gave permission for the letter to be written?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We will look at the letter that is given. On the decisions made by our Department, we will always disclose any information that we rely on when making such decisions. On the procedural issues, we will look at the letter when it comes. This is a very sensitive issue.
	As limited time is left for me to respond, let me say that CRB disclosures come under a different Department, so I will pass that issue to my colleagues. If I do not manage to get through all the procedures that the hon. Gentleman referred to, I undertake to write to him about the rest.
	It is absolutely critical for both the Independent Safeguarding Authority and my own Department to be as scrupulous and rigorous as possible in consideration of all such cases. They frequently deal with very complex issues, and we owe it to all concerned, including those who are under consideration, to review the information that we receive with all due diligence.
	The changes that we are introducing under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 will help to make sure that we have the toughest possible vetting and barring system for all those working with, or seeking to work with, children and vulnerable adults. We have already tightened the current system, so that anyone cautioned, as well as those who are convicted, for specified sexual offences against children will automatically be entered on list 99 and barred from working in schools and other education settings. We have made CRB checks mandatory for all new appointments to the schools work force, including staff entering the work force from overseas.
	The primary purpose of the process for considering cases is to safeguard children from contact with people who are considered unsuitable, either because they present a risk to a child's safety or welfare, or because their behaviour presents an unacceptable example to children. Cases are typically triggered by reports from the police, schools or local authorities, wherever there are grounds for concern about an individual working in a school, a further education institution or a local authority education setting.
	In addition, any relevant information received by the Departmentfor example, through the mediamay be considered. Where allegations or offences cause concern but do not meet the criteria for automatic barring, information will be sought from a range of agencies and from the individual concerned. Supporting evidence is required to assess the seriousness of the behaviour, or alleged behaviour, and to establish whether the allegations are proved on a balance of probabilities.
	It is impossible to say precisely how long it will take to conclude any given case, because the circumstances of each will vary. The length of time it takes to reach a decision very often also depends on how long it takes other agencies or bodies to provide us with the relevant information and evidence. However, we aim to conclude a case as soon as possible after receiving all the necessary information. Although we try to deal with all these cases as quickly as possible, obtaining sufficient information to decide whether to take up a case and then completing the processes inevitably takes time. Strengthening existing arrangements in the ways I have mentioned has led to a significant increase in the number of individuals on list 99. Last year, the total number was 8,036, but it had risen to 12,992 by January this year. The vast majority of the increase is due to the implementation of the amended list 99 regulations that came into force in February 2007.
	In relation to cases referred before 20 January this year, the new Independent Safeguarding Authority has been advising the Secretary of State on his decisions under the current scheme. On 20 January this year, however, legislation came into force that required all referrals made from that point to be made to the ISA, and required the ISA to have responsibility for making decisions on those cases in accordance with the new vetting and barring system.
	From July next year, all individuals registering with the new vetting and barring system will be subject to a regime of continuous monitoring. They will be reassessed against any new information, whether that comes from police, employers, social services departments or other sources. If necessary, they will be barred from the work force as a result. Legal penalties will exist to enforce that provision.
	In certain circumstances, people will be barred automatically from working with children, although in the majority of cases they will be able to make representations about why the bar should be lifted. While those representations are being made, they will continue to be barred from employment as teachers or school workers.
	Where the criteria for automatic barring are not met, all the facts of cases will be considered in deciding whether people are unsuitable to work with children and whether they should therefore be barred to prevent them from entering the children's work force. People are automatically barred from working with children and young people if they have been convicted or cautioned for any of a range of offences against children, including sexual offences. People are also automatically barred if they are subject to a court order that disqualifies them from working with children.
	Barring becomes discretionary when there are allegations or offences that cause concern but do not meet the criteria that I have just mentioned. In cases where there are allegations of concern, the ISA will perform the most rigorous assessment by seeking information from police, employers and other agencies, as well as from the individual concerned, before reaching any decision. In some cases, a specialist risk assessment of the person will be commissioned: once completed, that evidence will be taken into account by the ISA.
	The system is designed to be as fair and rigorous as possible. It gives those under consideration the opportunity to state their case, but it also reflects the huge importance that we have to place on safeguarding every single child's welfare.
	Of course, placing people who are unsuitable to work with children on a barred list is one of the main safeguards in place to protect young people from harm, but it must be stressed that former and prospective employers also play a vital role. It is for any prospective employer to decide, on the basis of information gathered from criminal record checks and other relevant sources of recruitment information, whether to employ a person. It is for former employers, when asked, to provide frank and accurate references for former employees.
	The safety and welfare of children is always our top priority. If there is any suggestion that an individual might pose an immediate risk to any child or young person, we would expect action to be taken without hesitation. In cases where no criminal offence has been committed, the Department will be absolutely rigorous in its efforts to ensure that it has all the information that it needs to make a decision on whether a person poses a risk to children and should be barred.
	The Department continues to consider cases after court proceedings have been completed: it does take court outcomes into account, but the Secretary of State also considers cases at the civil standardthat is, on the balance of probabilities. The criminal courts test evidence at the higher criminal standard of proofthat is, beyond all reasonable doubtso an acquittal of charges at court does not necessarily mean that an individual will not be barred.
	As I have said, the Secretary of State is under a duty to consider allegations of a serious nature that suggest that children have been put at risk of harm. If the Department becomes aware of informationsuch as a press report, or information from police, employers, the courts or a member of the public
	 House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Deferred Divisions

Ecclesiastical Offices (terms of service) measure

That the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure (HC 270), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
	 The House divided: Ayes 362, Noes 21.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Adjournment (May Day)

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 30 April 2009, do adjourn till Tuesday 5 May 2009.
	 The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 103.

Question accordingly agreed to.